Archive for the 'Politics' Category

A response from the Governor

Thanks for visiting my blog, Serving Bread. Here you'll read stories, insights, reflections and ramblings from a campus minister, father, husband and Jesus-follower. If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Here’s a response from the governor to my Open Letter. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.

Thank you for writing to share your thoughts with me about the proposed tax increase to balance our budget deficit.  Your input is important to me in these challenging economic times.

I signed the 2008-09 budget on September 23, 2008, concluding a very difficult budget year.  Since then, economic conditions have been deteriorating rapidly - in California and all around the country.  The mortgage crisis has worsened, unemployment has increased, the stock market has lost almost 20 percent of its value and, as a result, we are now facing an $11.2-billion revenue shortfall.  These are drastic problems that require immediate action.

I have called the Legislature into Special Session to close our projected current year shortfall.  However, we cannot close this gap with cuts alone, so I am proposing a combination of spending reductions and new revenues.  From education to prisons, from health care to social services, we must make cuts across the board to a many programs.  I know they will be painful, but this crisis is real, and it is very serious.

To bring in new revenues, I am proposing a temporary 1.5-percent sales tax increase, an expansion of the sales and use tax, an oil severance tax, an increase to the alcohol and excise tax and other revenue generators.  With an unprecedented drop in our income, we have no choice.  If we take these actions in the Special Session, we can close our current shortfall and protect state programs from suffering even greater cuts.  But urgency is the key - if we delay, our problems will only get worse.

As I continue to work with legislators to do what is best for the people of California, please know that your thoughts are important to me.  Together, we can turn this temporary problem into a permanent victory for all Californians.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

-----
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to grab the RSS feed. Also, please take a moment to submit this post through "Share This" above.
-----

Related Posts:

Oregon’s governor identifies with the poor
An open letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
A response from Carls Jr.
I wouldn’t know
In honor of Dr. King

Open Letter to Gov Schwarzenegger

Dear Governor,

After an unprecedented 85 day stalemate on California’s 2008-2009 budget, the state legislature was still unable to pass a balanced budget, which is requiring you to call a special session of the legislature to address our budget crisis. While I understand why you are proposing drastic cuts (especially to education) and a significant increase in sales tax, I fear and believe that your proposals would only put undue financial strains on lower income families.

First, it seems to me that all state politicians should take responsibility for our current crisis. We have enough data and understanding of economic cycles to have been able to plan better for our current economic downturn. As early as Biblical times, government administrators understood that in times of plenty, we need to take advantage of the abundance to plan and save for the times of need. So it should surprise and concern California taxpayers, that our state government did not manage public resources in such a way to help us through this downturn.

Second, state leaders need to oppose all bond measures until we ride through this downturn. It is fiscally unwise to promote and pass bond measures that put further strain on state resources. The interest we will pay on several bond measures that were just passed will prevent us from paying for expenditures that are already a part of the state budget.

Third, it concerns me that state taxes in California are regressive, in that the tax burden of the wealthy is less than the poor in terms of percentage of income. According to the California Budget Project, the poorest 20% of California residents saw nearly 12% of their income go to taxes, whereas the top 20% saw about 8% of their income taxed. Looking to shore up state revenues through the sales tax system will only put more burden on the low-income residents of our state.

I understand that spending has not increased by much in the last few years and perhaps you are right when you say that what we have in California is not a spending problem but a revenue problem. Let me suggest a few ways to shore up revenue to our state coffers:

  • Apply an additional tax on all new vehicles that get less than 16 mpg. The average EPA rating of cars sold in the United States in 2008 is around 19 mpg. Taxing gas guzzlers would in the short-term bring in additional state revenue, while in the long-term it will dry up demand for these types of vehicles that do not help our environment. However, I suggest an application system where businesses can apply to be shielded from the tax if they prove that the vehicle is necessary to the business’s success.
  • Curb the tax breaks to the entertainment industry. I understand that tax breaks create incentives for the movie industry to remain in California, but it seems unfair to shield this industry from contributing to the state coffers. If the expectation that all of us should be doing our part in closing the deficit, then the movie industry should also contribute.
  • Limit deductions taxpayers can take on the interest portion of their home loans on multiple homes. Real estate investors have found ways to protect themselves from paying taxes on their investments. There are far too many tax loopholes in real estate related taxes. While some of these fixes need to happen on the federal level, the state can take some proactive steps to close those loopholes and earn additional revenue.
  • Cut redundant education spending. In surveying our expenditures in education, it seems to me that there are cuts that can be made on administrative levels that do not affect our investment in educating students. My wife is a teacher and I have observed that there are too many levels of input in developing our education system in the state. For example, curriculum input is done at the school, in the district, and on the state level. As an example, I suggest we do away with the position of State Secretary of Education and instead create a commission of district superintendents throughout the state who would fulfill the responsibilities of the Secretary of Education.
  • Stop special elections. We need to do a better job consolidating our election process. In 2009, our state is already looking at holding at least three state-wide elections.

I understand that the above suggestions will not close a $10 billion gap in our state budget, but I hope that it’s a start and it would catalyze discussions to generate additional revenue that would not put any more pressure on the poorest taxpayers of our state.

Sincerely,

Eddy E

-----
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to grab the RSS feed. Also, please take a moment to submit this post through "Share This" above.
-----

Related Posts:

A response from the Governor
An open letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
An open letter regarding the $6 burger
I wouldn’t know
A response from Carls Jr.

Maybe the October Surprise is a McCain-Obama ticket or Obama-McCain ticket

McCain and Obama show a little love

(HT: Slate)

-----
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to grab the RSS feed. Also, please take a moment to submit this post through "Share This" above.
-----

Related Posts:

Obama, Clinton quit and endorse McCain
Narratives as litmus tests
(non)Controversies in the news
Can conservatives endorse Obama?
A little logic check

A little logic check

In short order, we are going put an end to the reckless conduct, corruption, and unbridled greed that have caused a crisis on Wall Street. (John McCain, 9/16/08)

  1. The McCain family owns a fleet of 13 vehicles
  2. The McCain family owns 8 properties
  3. The McCain family is worth around $136 million

Barack Obama: “No one is pro-abortion.
Barack Obama: “I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

-----
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to grab the RSS feed. Also, please take a moment to submit this post through "Share This" above.
-----

Related Posts:

100
Finance Friday 22: The Fiscal Month
Finance Fridays 3: Budgeting Ahead
A take on the 9/11 conspiracies
Finance Friday 9: Just a little more

Narratives as litmus tests

Brian McLaren (of emergent church, New Kind of Christian fame) has written a post on his blog titled, “Why I’m Voting for Obama, and Why I Hope You Will Too: Reason 1.” I found to be an excellent and fresh post on how he plans to vote in the upcoming election.

Before you are offended and write him off as a liberal, I urge you to look at his arguments. He writes, “My top reason for supporting Barack Obama for president centers in the narrative I believe he frames his life and work by, in contrast to the narrative John McCain frames his life and work by.”

McLaren argues that McCain has framed his life as a warrior whereas Obama has framed his narrative as a reconciler. I find the language of narrative to be helpful. It gives us an insight into the worldview and leadership of the candidate.

Using his framework or litmus test, you may conclude that McCain has a more compelling (and biblical) narrative than of Obama, which would urge you to vote for McCain. I don’t think there is much disagreement that McCain does see himself as a warrior, though I would add that McCain has framed his life more as a reformer than a warrior.

Where I disagree with McLaren is whether a more biblical framework should propel people to vote for one candidate over another. Does it matter that Obama’s narrative “in harmony with the teachings of Jesus. Conversely, a narrative of domination and defeat is not: it is the way of Caesar, or what Jesus called “the kingdoms of this world”? Even if McLaren’s assessment is correct, should that be enough to vote for Obama? On the one hand, I think the answer is “of course.” We should be voting for the person who has a narrative and a worldview that we believe to be most aligned with that of Jesus. But on the other hand, this line of thinking can tempt us to assess a candidate’s theology. I am not looking to vote for the most theologically astute candidate.

No doubt there will be committed Christians who will vote for Obama this fall and committed Christians who will vote for McCain. How we perceive their narrative should be a helpful framework to assess their leadership.

-----
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to grab the RSS feed. Also, please take a moment to submit this post through "Share This" above.
-----

Related Posts:

My thoughts on inerrancy
Go Mississippi!!!
Shocking the doctor
A beautiful picture of community
Proposition 4 — YES

Blacks and Republicans

Republicans definitely have a steep hill to climb to get any significant portion of the black vote (especially on the presidential election level). With Obama in the race, the McCain gang has to do some convincing that the Republican platform is superb to that of the Democrats in addressing issues near to the hearts of Black voters and communities.

Well, the Republicans are hurting. They are hurting pretty bad. Jay Leno caught on,

I gotta admit, she looked very comfortable at the podium ’cause it’s kinda like Alaska: you look out on that convention floor, nothing but white as far as the eye can see.

I don’t know if you noticed this, but at the GOP convention, the cameramen are desperately trying to find minorities in the audience they could zoom in on, ’cause this is what they do. Finally, after an hour, they found one. It was a Presbyterian standing in a group of Methodists.

Those jokes have more truth to them than the Republicans would like. Here are some statistics for you from The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies (I highly recommend downloading and perusing the free pdfs outlining their research of Black voting patterns):

  • There were nearly twice as many black delegates at the 1912 convention than the 2008 convention. There were 65 black delegates then compared to 36 this past week. With less total delegates, Blacks made up 6% of the delegates in 1912, while they only made up 1.5% of the delegates in 2008.
  • Incidentally, there were 167 black delegates (the most ever at a Republican convention) in 2004, making up 6.7% of the total delegate count. (Remember the ‘we’re a big tent’ campaign?)
  • In contrast, the democrats had 1079 black delegates (24.3%) in Denver.
  • Republicans had more black delegates at most of the conventions in the 20th century. The shift in favor of the Democrats happened beginning with the 1952 convention when the Democrats began to outnumber Republicans with Black delegates. And then it significantly took off in 1968 (the first convention after the signing of the Civil Rights Act).
  • If the Republicans had nominated Mike Huckabee, things might have been a little different. In all of the elections for statewide offices in the past ten years, he has earned more of the black vote compared to any other Republican. In 1998, he earned 48% of the black vote.

-----
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to grab the RSS feed. Also, please take a moment to submit this post through "Share This" above.
-----

Related Posts:

Independent Local Convention, Sept. 8-11
Dear Christian, Hillary is alright!
Should religion count?
Congratulations to the Democrats!
Can conservatives endorse Obama?

Defending Palin

If John McCain hoped to pull the element of surprise with the selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate, he achieved that in more ways than he was counting. For anyone following politics, the topic of the week is Sarah Palin.

While I (and others) may be critical of McCain’s choice, I think the criticism has taken a disturbing turn. Surrogates for the Democratic party are questioning whether she can be a mom and a vice president, especially since she has a special needs child and a young daughter who is five months pregnant.

It’s fair to critique Palin for her views, McCain for his judgment, and the Republicans for their politics. We can debate the issues and even the character of the candidates. But we should not be spending our time critiquing Palin because we think she should be spending her time focused on her family rather than on public life. You and I may not pursue public office or even the VP slot if our circumstances were similar to Palin’s, but let’s judge her based on her experience, qualifications and politics.

Finally, I take issue with Tim Rutten’s sophomoric criticisms of Palin in today’s LA Times. Rutten’s thesis is basically this:

The particular brand of social conservatism in which Sarah Palin quite evidently believes deeply would deny other American families and other American women the freedom to make these same intimate decisions according to the dictates of their own consciences, religious convictions and traditions.

Rutten assumes that the decisions available to Palin and the family include options that are available to other families. In other words, abortion may not have been on the table when the Palin family was considering how to move forward with their teenage daughter’s pregnancy or even her own pregnancy with her fifth child who was diagnosed (in-utero) with Down’s Syndrome.

If anything, it seems that the Palin family is in line with her convictions by following through with both pregnancies. Rutten is free to critique her values and positions, but to suggest that she is a hypocrite is far from fair.

Finally, as a disclaimer, I am not a registered Republican. I write this defense to make sure that we debate the right issues rather than the sensational ones that the media wants to highlight.

-----
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to grab the RSS feed. Also, please take a moment to submit this post through "Share This" above.
-----

Related Posts:

No related posts

Does it matter that Joe has it backwards?


-----
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to grab the RSS feed. Also, please take a moment to submit this post through "Share This" above.
-----

Related Posts:

Thank You, Thank You
Which politician will change your world?
Independent Local Convention, Day 3: Serving the Greater Good
Some things you shouldn’t say in public
More news from the motherland

Which politician will change your world?

Every single presidential candidate is promising that he or she will make our lives better if we elect him or her to the White House. He or she will give us change, offer us hope, make our breath sweeter, make us more prosperous, more productive, happier, better educated, holier and healthier if we cast our vote for him or her.

Presidents simply cannot change much for most of us. For the huge majority of Americans, how much we earn, how healthy we are, how well our kids are educated, that’s all up to us, not the federal government. No government program will make us middle class or rich if we don’t get educated in some way and work hard. No government program will make us healthy if we eat too much or smoke or drink too much, or don’t get exercise. The government cannot provide a lavish retirement for us if we don’t save and invest well. Oh, and all that money the candidates promise to spend? That’s your money, not their money, they’re spending.

In a free society, what we are and who we are depends on us, except for the very most poor among us, where the government can indeed make a difference. But for the huge bulk of us Americans no matter what any Republican or any Democrat promises, it’s up to the people in our house, not the White House. For most of us, what the politicians say is just sideshow barking, and when the circus leaves town we’ve got to get back to basics: work, save and teach your children well, and enjoy the political show. But it’s just show business, not real business.

Ben Stein, CBS News: Sunday Morning, cited in Forbes (May 19, 2008), page 22

Granted Ben Stein leans right politically, but there is something to be said about how much hope we put in a presidential candidate. I do think that who we elect to the White House does matter (a bit more than Stein’s conclusion). Had Al Gore been president in 2000, we most likely would not be at war in Iraq and would not have had the “Bush Tax Cuts.” It seems things would have been fundamentally different for us as Americans.

However, I do agree with Stein in how we may put too much stock in the power of a president or legislator.  We speak of Presidential candidates as serving sort of Messiah’s for us. We have high hopes for what they can and should accomplish.  I recognize that our leaders must inspire us to believe in them and their brand of politics, but at the end of the day, our candidate will have far less impact than we credit them.

-----
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to grab the RSS feed. Also, please take a moment to submit this post through "Share This" above.
-----

Related Posts:

Please, Don’t Change the World!
Independent Local Convention, Day 4: Real Transformation
Culture Making, Part III, How to change or make culture
What I’m googling right now…
Leadership Insight 4: Lead within your context

State of the Union

From Comics.com

-----
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to grab the RSS feed. Also, please take a moment to submit this post through "Share This" above.
-----

Related Posts:

Proposition 88
Proposition 1B
Why America will live with a nuclear North Korea and a nuclear Iran
Proposition 1A
Where do you buy play with toys then?