Monthly Archives: November 2015

Right-wing Nationalism gets an all-American makeover

Donald Trump remains hugely popular among the Republican base, despite the fact that he advocates for forced deportation of eleven-million of our neighbors.

There is an odd disconnect involved in that popularity.

Republican extremists have grown almost casual about invoking the memory of Hitler’s atrocities when opposing Obama’s healthcare initiatives, sensible gun control or just about any aspect of government administration they’d like to eliminate; yet, these same people seem completely unaware of the uncomfortable parallel between Trump’s mass deportation plan and the Third Reich’s final solution to the “Jewish problem.”

His principle rival for the nomination, Ben Carson, insists that “religious freedom” must be protected for those who would obstruct a same-sex couple’s right to marry. That concern for “religious freedom” apparently ends abruptly when it comes to the rights of people other than Christians.

Carson has actually said that being Muslim should disqualify a candidate for president.  He doesn’t think mass deportation is such a good idea, but only because it would cause a “hardship”  for the employers of this cheap labor force.

Judging by Trump and Carson’s popularity, Republicans don’t particularly want their ranks to grow if it means accepting people who hail from different cultures and belief systems. That’s because we are the best country in the world and our ‘greatness’ should be  reserved only for the chosen elite.

Way back in my high school Sociology class, we learned all about “nationalism.” It wasn’t a nice word or a pretty story.

The Nuremberg Tribunals were still fresh in the horrified public consciousness. It was clear at the time that the German people had paid a terrible price for being susceptible to nationalistic overreach and xenophobia.

Where were people like Donald Trump, Ben Carson and their followers when those lessons were being taught?

(BTW: Does anybody teach Sociology in high school anymore?)

How is it that they can even think they have a greater right to live on U.S. soil than do the 11 million people who would be displaced? Europeans forcibly took this land from the indigenous peoples so recently that their great-grandchildren are still actively seeking redress.

I lived in West Berlin for a couple of years, barely thirty years after Hitler’s death. Older neighborhoods were still pockmarked from war, and rubble remained a common sight.

The towering walls of Tempelhof Airport, pride of the Third Reich, bore crudely chiseled scars where giant stone swastikas had been unceremoniously removed. You could almost imagine the rows of gigantic red, white and black flags swaying overhead.

Berliners whom  I met there (at least those who could be persuaded to talk about it) recoiled from the nationalism of their country’s recent past.  We heard young people wonder aloud about their parents’ past; and when the wine flowed freely the sad question of peripheral culpability was inevitable.

I learned to regard showy displays of patriotism with discomfort; and when I turned a corner recently in St. Albans to suddenly face a forty-foot American flag, I involuntarily shuddered.

In the aftermath of 9/11, the myth of American exceptionalism, with all of its nationalistic trappings, was dusted off and given a new coat of patriotic paint. We immediately forgot about our slave-owner history, Hiroshima, the McCarthy Witchhunt, Segregation, Wounded Knee, the My Lai Massacre and Watergate.  We were the good guys; anyone who wasn’t with us was against us.

Fourteen years later, what has all the neo-con swagger gotten us: an exponential growth in global enemies and the resurgence of prejudice, fear and ignorance at home.

If we are to believe the polls, at least a third of American voters are prepared, as German voters once were, to endorse the xenophobic ravings of a narcissistic sociopath who promises them greatness.

Terrifying.

Updated: Climate Courage (and foolishness)

Yesterday, while environmentalists  were focused on the much trumpeted Keystone XL decision,  the White House apparently held a stealth ‘Summit on Nuclear Energy’ to which only proponents appear to have been invited.  The upshot is an administration commitment to greater reliance on nuclear energy.  There appears to have been no interest spent on the toxic stockpiling of nuclear waste that will be our nuclear legacy.

This is a variation on the ol’ bait and switch move: using the Keystone XL decision as protective cover for a decidedly less attractive agenda.   ___________________________________________________________________

We can’t let this day pass without commenting on President Obama’s announcement that he is rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline on behalf of the American people.

For all of my differences with  Mr. Obama’s foreign policy decisions, I have nothing but respect for this further demonstration of his determination to reclaim  a bit of the progressive mantle in his final two years as president.   No ’lame duck’ he!

In the long run, it is quite possible that this will become the most important decision of his presidency.

Deprived of this cheap form of transport through the U.S., and in combination with plummeting oil prices, will tar sands oil deposits become less attractive for exploitation?  It is just possible that failure of the pipeline will have an inhibiting effect on the industry; long enough, one might hope, for Canada to come to its senses about the environmental calamity the practice represents.

It’s a small climate victory, but the President’s framing of the decision gives one hope that we can look forward to more progress on climate change initiatives.

I was disappointed to read that none of Vermont’s gubernatorial candidates will support  carbon tax legislation. I think that is a real shame. It would take courage to do so, but I, for one, would have supported the brave candidate who stepped up to that responsibility.

Art Woolf: NH is just VT with lower taxes

Art Woolf’s latest tax rant was in the Freeps 11/04/15. I keep seeing it posted and shared on Facebook. It’s great fodder for those who want to grouse about taxes, but don’t actually read the article to draw their own conclusions. I read Mr. Woolf’s analysis of Vermont’s per capita tax collections and came to different conclusions than he did.

Let’s assume his data is right. A population of 626,000 Vermonters were taxed (in 2013) $3.4B, meaning $5,423 for every man woman and child. National average per capita is 10.4% of income and Vermont taxes 12.1% of income. So, the state of Vermont collects 1.7% more tax than the national average. I’ll accept that much, even if the chart Mr. Woolf included has a chopped Y-axis to make the difference in Vermont collections appear to be higher than the national average. Taking a page from the Fox News Graphics Dept. are we?

1) Vermonters Don’t Pay It All

Mr. Woolf rightly points out a major flaw in his own methodology. Many of Vermont’s taxes are paid by folks who visit our state and pay sales tax, rooms and meals, and gas tax. Out of state residents own homes and pay property taxes.

2) What About Fees?

When I was at a National Council of State Legislatures meeting a couple of years ago a politician from NH joked that their state motto was “Live Fee or Die”. NH is able to collect tolls on Interstates because of higher traffic volumes and their fees (see DMV schedules) are higher than Vermont’s.

3) State and Local School Taxes

Vermont has a pretty novel statewide property tax system to fund public education. It levels the playing field so poor towns don’t have dramatically lower investments in education for their students. According to the NEA for the 2014-2015 school year 95.3% of Vermont’s school spending was collected by the state and only 33% came from the state in New Hampshire. We do spend more per pupil, no doubt and there are ways we could cut school costs (see my post on Act 46). We also have world-class public schools across the state. If Mr. Woolf compared apples to apples I bet he’d find that property taxes, when State and Local were summed would not be as disparate as his methods would have you believe.

4) Published versus Effective Tax Rates

Are we talking about the effective rates that Vermonters actually pay, say after we get homestead property tax adjustments? Or is Mr. Woolf using the raw dollars collected by the state to do his math, regardless of whether or not some of those dollars are returned to towns and taxpayers? I can’t tell.

These are just the things I could think of off the top of my head. I think the bigger problem than having state taxes being 1.7% higher than the national average is that lower and middle income Vermonters are paying a bigger share than they should be. That’s really why the “affordability crisis” and these anti-tax rants appeal to people so much. If we had a truly progressive tax structure then Vermont would be in much better shape. We think of Vermont as being a progressive state, but our tax structure isn’t really all that progressive according to the Public Assets Institute.

Art Woolf blithely asserts that if Vermont just lowered its revenues by a billion dollars, things would keep going on the way they have been. I’d love to hear a list of the cuts he’d make in our state budget. Would he close schools, lower the number of insured Vermonters, or maybe let our roads and bridges crumble like they do in New Hampshire? It would hit Vermonters pretty hard to cut that much out of the budget.

For the most part I think New Hampshire just makes up the difference in their low state taxes with higher local taxes and fees. I’d be happy to live in Vermont, even if I really did have to pay 1.7 pennies per dollars more to the state. In reality though, I don’t think I pay that much more. Mr. Woolf is just counting on people to accept his methodology and join him in lamenting about taxes. It will always get you a few votes, but it doesn’t solve a darn thing.

 

Cultural Mysogyny and the Defense of Norm McAllister

Well it appears that Norm McAllister may soon face his fellow Senators in an expulsion hearing initiated by fellow Republican Senator Joe Benning, who makes a very effective case for expulsion in this editorial.

It’s fairly clear from Senator Benning’s words that he appreciates the over-arching issue that too many still seem to ignore: Mr. McAllister admits to having sex with his teenaged employee.

That is just plain wrong.

The wrong is amplified by the fact that Mr. McAllister has sworn an oath to serve and protect his constituents, one of whom is that child.

Others, including his fellow Franklin County Republican senator, Dustin Degree, say they will support the expulsion, but only because Mr. McAllister, having earlier been stripped of his committee assignments, has lost his ability to effectively represent the interests of his constituents at the Statehouse.

Beyond that, Sen. Degree and others say that Mr. McAllister is “innocent” until proven guilty of the charges in a court of law.

That position ignores his own admission of having violated someone whom most of us would readily regard as a child.

Mr. McAllister apparently debates the exact age at which he began forcing himself on her, insisting that she was “at least sixteen;” but does that make it any less an act of abuse?

This reluctance to judge Mr. McAllister in the court of public opinion is very puzzling to me, since it is routinely done to less influential individuals under far less damning circumstances.

As a woman, I cannot help but wonder whether or not, if the young victim were male rather than female, outrage concerning the magnitude of Mr. McAllister’s admitted violation would be greater.

If Mr. McAllister had violated a sixteen year old boy who worked on his farm, I suspect he would have been publicly shunned as soon as the news became public.

As things now stand, Mr. McAllister feels free to stroll around the county fair as if nothing had happened, insisting on his innocence.  According to online comments, some people apparently wish to see him completely exonerated; they’re talking about ‘poor Norm McAllister’ and the injustice of it all.

Because his victim was a female there seems to be a question in some people’s minds as to whether or not what this 70-year old man did could technically be regarded as rape.

Something in the culture suggests to them that sixteen-year-old girls can give their consent to violation by employers who are old enough to be their grandfathers.

What that says about some of my neighbors I find truly disturbing.

Legislature moves State House under cover of night

statehousegone
Senator McAllister (R-Franklin): “Where’d everybody go?”

Under cover of darkness last week, the Vermont Legislature had the Statehouse dismantled and moved (via flatbed trucks and National Guard helicopters) to an undisclosed location. According to insiders, the action was taken the day before embattled Senator Norm McAllister (R-Franklin County) was due to arrive for a committee hearing. McAllister was not informed that the Statehouse had been moved, or where it had been moved to.

There were a handful of reports of sightings of the golden dome, mostly in out-of-the-way or hard to reach locales. One Representative (who asked not to be identified) indicated that the moves would continue.

“We hear that Norm might’ve gotten wind of where we are, so we’ll probably be moving the building again tonight. WIth any luck, he’ll get lost trying to find us, which could buy us a few more days and save the taxpayers some of the relocation expenses. It aint cheap.”

statehousespotted
State House spotted by hikers.

When asked why the legislature doesn’t simply vote to expel the scandalized Franklin County Senator rather than continue to resort to such extraordinary means to insure he gets nowhere near the legislative spotlight, one anonymous Senator scoffed.

“Oh, please. Dealing with Norm is the last thing any of us want to do.

A few million dollars here and there to avoid it is a small price to pay.”