Wedge Issues: God in Society

One of the hallmarks of the "Religious Right" is that they are, by and large, a fundamentalist Christian wing of the Republican Party. That's not to say that members of other religions can't be conservative - one merely has to look at militant Islam to find hyperconservatism. Nor is that to say that religious Americans can't be progressive - one merely needs to look as far as the Quakers.

But the American (strict interpretationist) religious right is the single one that wields the most political power. Roy Moore comes to mind; you'd never find a supreme court justice who builds monuments to nonsectarianism and puts them in a state supreme court building.

In the schools, the religious right does everything they can to foist the idea of fundamentalist Christianity on the next generation of United States citizens. This does such a great disservice to the children that I really ought not need to point it out - however, think of the uproar there would be if someone tried to force a call to pray to Mecca on our schools.

While it's all well and good to point out the hypocrisy of the religous right, and to point out their power, that's no the purpose of this weblog.

The purpose, as noted in the header, is to point out ways that the Democratic Party can gain ground on issues that Americans pay attention to.

The Republican Party has admitted that they mailed out literature implying (although not implicitly saying) that Democrats in West Virginia and Arkansas intended to ban the bible entirely. This is both patently untrue, and powerful propaganda, especially in areas where the religious right holds so much sway. Consider for a moment - if you're dumb enough to believe this, and you're a conservative Christian, wouldn't it mean a lot to you to support candidates who support the Bible?

At the same time, a California school has banned the Declaration of Independence, because they've banned a teacher from handing out documents that mention God.

This is where the liberals give the Democrats a bad name - because of somebody's idea that secularism should take precedence over both history and intelligence. Because a large portion of the American public constantly confuses political parties with liberal or conservative ideologies, the Democratic Party is going to take the heat for the decision a hyperliberal idiot principal at a California high school made.

And, of course, there's the Pledge of Allegiance flap from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Democrats have a hard enough time convincing swing voters, and potential conservative voters, that the party is not out to completely secularize the country. Moves like the three above merely confuse voters whom the Party needs to connect to.

Solving these problems is a multi-step process.

• Firstly, the party must release a statement recognizing that this country was founded on Judeochristian ideals.

That's not to say that the party should post the 10 commandments on the headquarters' front doors; instead, the party's statement should be unqualified and, for the sake of brevity, unclarified.


• Secondly, the party must maintain a strong stance on opposing organized prayer in schools.

Just because this country was founded on a particular set of values doesn't mean that we have to impose the religious overtones of said values on students who may not share them. The Party must attempt to have it both ways - supporting the idea of Bible study groups, as well as study groups for other religions, and it must stand against prayer over the intercom, or even prayer minutes. Forcing someone to pray does not bring them closer to God, even if it's just "time for silent reflection." All it does is make them fake religious ferver to fit in.


• Thirdly, the Party must push its legislators to release statements opposing the sanitization of education.

Again, there are references to God in the Declaration of Independence - there are references to God in a lot of books by great Americans. Whooptee-do. Opposing prayer and supporting whitewashing are different things, and it's time the Party did its part to make sure that the public knows that, and to make sure that the public knows that the Party knows that.

Just because the religious right has political power doesn't mean they're the only ones qualified to talk about God, or religion's place in society. It just means they're louder than the Democratic Party. It's time to fix that.

Wedge Issues: Taxation

Today, FoxNews ran a story hidden in the basebar of the organization's homepage that said that Bush Administration officials were huddling with members of Congress to hammer out alterations to the tax code, including one that really took me by surprise; the Administration is floating the idea of eliminating the IRS altogether.

(here's the story: FoxNews link)

Now, normally I'd greet this idea with at least a modicum of joy. After all, nobody likes being taxed, even those of us who barely earn enough to come up onto the IRS's radar.

However, there is the simple matter of funding the federal government, and that's where the Administration, as usual, becomes a collection of right-wing moneyhoarders: they want a national sales tax.

In order to fund the government at the level it is now, the national sales tax would have to be somewhere between 23 and 30 cents on the dollar, for every dollar spent on taxable expenditures (rent and mortgage are not taxable, so more on that later). In simpler terms, presuming you spend about one third of your income on rent OR on mortgage (which is about the average), your tax rate will be between 14 and 20 percent on every dollar you spend at stores, online, or elsewhere. Anywhere an item crosses a state line, it becomes federally taxable, and will become fair game for the feds.

This is, to put it bluntly, an idiotic idea. The only people that this will benefit are those who currently pay more than 23 percent income tax, which is people who earn $68,800 dollars or more, or families that earn more than about $120,000. Otherwise, you're going to end up paying more in federal sales tax than you would otherwise.

Here's an example: I've earned $20,726 this year. My rent has, thus far, been $6,600. That means my taxable expenditures shold be about 14,100 dollars. Problem is I've actually spent more than that, about $18,000 all told (as have most Americans - private debt load is increasing, which means that Sally and John Public are spending more than they're earning). So my taxable expenditures are around $18,000 this year. At the lowest possible federal tax rate, I'd have paid $4140 in additional income taxes.

But wait! My federal witholding taxes this year have only been $2300! That means that my tax rate would almost double under the administration's plan.

The Democratic Party must act. First, it must begin to run ads indicating what the Administration intends to do. Secondly, these ads must be run 24/7, in all 50 states, and must use real people. These ads must explain why the federal sales tax is a bad idea, using these same real people.

Finally, these ads must point out that the only people who would see any tangible benefit to this program would be those who earn above a certain level. In the end, it's about the top 10% of people within the United States - the people who tend to be protected by the Republican Party anyway.

Secondly, the party must push its own tax agenda - this agenda must include the John Kerry platform of taxation - extending tax cuts to the poorest, increasing the income floor for taxation, and increasing the tax rate on all persons earning $175,000 or more, per year. That way, when the Republicans vote against it, the Democrats can instantly begin accusing Republicans of voting against making the Bush tax cuts permanent - precisely the sort of attack the Democratic leadership needs.

Since the 1950s, the Republican Party has been one which promises fiscal restraint and ends up hitting hardest those who are least able to bear the burden. This Administration has shown itself no different, and the Party must react.