My father says that children keep
growing,
Rivers keep flowing too.
My father says he doesn't know why,
But somehow or other they do.
--They do! some how or other they do.--
A hundred million miracles,
A hundred million miracles are happ'ning ev'ry day,
And those who say they don't agree -
Are those who do not hear or see.
A hundred million miracles,
A hundred million miracles are happ'ning ev'ry day,
A swallow in Tasmania is sitting on her eggs,
And suddenly those eggs have wings and eyes and beaks and legs!
A hundred million miracles!
A little girl in Chungking, just thirty inches tall,
Decides that she will try to walk and nearly doesn't fall!
A hundred million miracles!
A hundred million miracles,
A hundred million miracles are happ'ning ev'ry day!
My father says the sun will keep rising over the eastern hill.
My father says he doesn't know why but somehow or other it will.
--It will! somehow or other it will.--
A hundred million miracles,
A hundred million miracles are happ'ning ev'ry day!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here is another article that will for sure
stick in your craw! thinkingblue
Paul Krugman asks how congress can justify eliminating or substantially
reducing the estate tax after arguing it had to cut essential social
services such as health insurance for children to trim the deficit in a
bill signed in February:
June 5, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Shameless in the Senate
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The Senate almost voted to repeal the estate tax last fall, but Republican
leaders postponed the vote after Hurricane Katrina. It's easy to see why:
the public might have made the connection between scenes of Americans
abandoned in the Superdome and scenes of well-heeled senators voting huge
tax breaks for their even wealthier campaign contributors.
But memories of Katrina have faded, and they're about to try again. The
Senate will probably vote this week. So it's important to realize that
there's still a clear connection between tax breaks for the rich and
failure to help Americans in need.
Any senator who votes to repeal the estate tax, or votes for a
"compromise" that goes most of the way toward repeal, is in effect saying
that increasing the wealth of people who are already in line to inherit
millions or tens of millions is more important than taking care of fellow
citizens who need a helping hand.
To understand this point, we need to look at what Congress has been doing
lately in the name of deficit reduction.
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which was signed in February, consists
mainly of cuts to spending on Medicare, Medicaid and education. The
Medicaid cuts will have the largest human impact: the Congressional Budget
Office estimates that they will cause 65,000 people, mainly children, to
lose health insurance, and lead many people who retain insurance to skip
needed medical care because they can't afford increased co-payments.
Congressional leaders justified these harsh measures by saying that we
have to reduce the budget deficit, and there's no way to do that without
inflicting pain.
But those same leaders now propose making the deficit worse by repealing
the estate tax. Apparently deficits aren't such a big problem after all,
as long as we're running up debts to provide bigger inheritances to
wealthy heirs rather than to provide medical care to children.
And the cost of tax cuts is far larger than the savings from benefit cuts.
Under current law — what I once called the Throw Mama From the Train Act
of 2001 — the estate tax is scheduled to be phased out in 2010, but return
in 2011. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, making repeal
permanent would cost more than $280 billion from 2011 to 2015. That's more
than four times the savings from the Deficit Reduction Act over the same
period.
Who would benefit from this largess? The estate tax is overwhelmingly a
tax on the very, very wealthy; only about one estate in 200 pays any tax
at all. The campaign for estate tax repeal has largely been financed by
just 18 powerful business dynasties, including the family that owns
Wal-Mart.
You may have heard tales of family farms and small businesses broken up to
pay taxes, but those stories are pure propaganda without any basis in
fact. In particular, advocates of estate tax repeal have never been able
to provide a single real example of a family farm sold to pay estate
taxes.
Nonetheless, the estate tax is up for a vote this week. First, Republicans
will try to repeal the estate tax altogether. If that fails, they'll offer
a compromise that isn't really a compromise, like a plan suggested by
Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, that would cost almost as much as
full repeal, or a plan suggested by Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of
Montana, that is only slightly cheaper.
In each case, the crucial vote will be procedural: if 60 senators vote to
close off debate, estate tax repeal or something close to it will surely
pass. Any senator who votes for cloture but against estate tax repeal —
which I'm told is what John McCain may do — is simply a hypocrite, trying
to have it both ways.
But will the Senate vote for cloture? The answer depends on two groups of
senators: Democrats like Mr. Baucus who habitually stake out "centrist"
positions that give Republicans almost everything they want, and moderate
Republicans like Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island who consistently cave in
to their party's right wing. Will these senators show more spine than they
have in the past?
In the interest of stiffening those spines, let me remind senators that
this isn't just a fiscal issue, it's also a moral issue. Congress has
already declared that the budget deficit is serious enough to warrant
depriving children of health care; how can it now say that it's worth
enlarging the deficit to give Paris Hilton a tax break?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh and one more piece of
sickening news to
Quake one's gizzard... thinkingblue
Editorial
Block the Vote
In a country that spends so much time extolling the glories of democracy,
it's amazing how many elected officials go out of their way to discourage
voting. States are adopting rules that make it hard, and financially
perilous, for nonpartisan groups to register new voters. They have adopted
new rules for maintaining voter rolls that are likely to throw off many
eligible voters, and they are imposing unnecessarily tough ID
requirements.
Florida recently reached a new low when it actually bullied the League of
Women Voters into stopping its voter registration efforts in the state.
The Legislature did this by adopting a law that seems intended to scare
away anyone who wants to run a voter registration drive. Since
registration drives are particularly important for bringing poor people,
minority groups and less educated voters into the process, the law appears
to be designed to keep such people from voting.
It imposes fines of $250 for every voter registration form that a group
files more than 10 days after it is collected, and $5,000 for every form
that is not submitted — even if it is because of events beyond anyone's
control, like a hurricane. The Florida League of Women Voters, which is
suing to block the new rules, has decided it cannot afford to keep
registering new voters in the state as it has done for 67 years. If a
volunteer lost just 16 forms in a flood, or handed in a stack of forms a
day late, the group's entire annual budget could be put at risk.
In Washington, a new law prevents people from voting if the secretary of
state fails to match the information on their registration form with
government databases. There are many reasons that names, Social Security
numbers and other data may not match, including typing mistakes. The state
is supposed to contact people whose data does not match, but the process
is too tilted against voters.
Congress is considering a terrible voter ID requirement as part of the
immigration reform bill. Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky,
introduced an amendment to require all voters to present a federally
mandated photo ID. Even people who have been voting for years would need
to get a new ID to vote in 2008. Millions of people without drivers'
licenses, including many elderly people and city residents, might fail to
do so, and be ineligible to vote. The amendment has been blocked so far,
but voting-rights advocates worry that it could reappear.
These three techniques — discouraging registration drives, purging
eligible voters and imposing unreasonable ID requirements keep showing up.
Colorado recently imposed criminal penalties on volunteers who slip up in
registration drives. Georgia, one of several states to adopt harsh new
voter ID laws, had its law struck down by a federal court.
Protecting the integrity of voting is important, but many of these rules
seem motivated by a partisan desire to suppress the vote, and particular
kinds of voters, rather than to make sure that those who are entitled to
vote - and only those who are entitled — do so. The right to vote is
fundamental, and Congress and state legislatures should not pass laws that
put an unnecessary burden on it. If they do, courts should strike them
down.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Along the same lines as above
... thinkingblue
Block the Vote, Ohio Remix
The New York Times | Editorial
Wednesday 07 June 2006
If there was ever a sign of a ruling party in trouble, it is a game
plan that calls for trying to win by discouraging voting.
The latest sign that Republicans have an election-year strategy to
shut down voter registration drives comes from Ohio. As the state gears up
for a very competitive election season this fall, its secretary of state,
J. Kenneth Blackwell, has put in place "emergency" regulations that could
hit voter registration workers with criminal penalties for perfectly
legitimate registration practices. The rules are so draconian they could
shut down registration drives in Ohio.
Mr. Blackwell, who also happens to be the Republican candidate for
governor this year, has a history of this sort of behavior. In 2004, he
instructed county boards of elections to reject any registrations on paper
of less than 80-pound stock - about the thickness of a postcard. His order
was almost certainly illegal, and he retracted it after he came under
intense criticism. It was, however, in place long enough to get some
registrations tossed out.
This year, Mr. Blackwell's office has issued rules and materials
that appear to require that paid registration workers, and perhaps even
volunteers, personally take the forms they collect to an election office.
Organizations that run registration drives generally have the people who
register voters bring the forms back to supervisors, who can then review
them for errors. Under Mr. Blackwell's edict, everyone involved could be
committing a crime. Mr. Blackwell's rules also appear to prohibit people
who register voters from sending the forms in by mail. That rule itself
may violate federal elections law.
Mr. Blackwell's rules are interpretations of a law the
Republican-controlled Ohio Legislature passed recently. Another of the
nation's most famous swing states, Florida, has been the scene of similar
consternation and confusion since it recently enacted a law that is so
harsh that the Florida League of Women Voters announced that it was
stopping all voter registration efforts for the first time in 67 years.
Florida's Legislature, like Ohio's, is controlled by Republicans.
Throughout American history both parties have shown a willingness to try
to use election law to get results they might otherwise not win at the
polls. But right now it is clearly the Republicans who believe they have
an interest in keeping the voter base small. Mr. Blackwell and other
politicians who insist on making it harder to vote never say, of course,
that they are worried that get-out-the-vote drives will bring too many
poor and minority voters into the system. They say that they want to
reduce fraud. However, there is virtually no evidence that registration
drives are leading to fraud at the polls.
But there is one clear way that Ohio's election system is corrupt.
Decisions about who can vote are being made by a candidate for governor.
Mr. Blackwell should hand over responsibility for elections to a decision
maker whose only loyalty is to the voters and the law.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thinkingblue