Charles Davenport is a schmuck!

Here is the link to Charles Davenport's recent article in the Greensboro News-Record

http://www.news-record.com/content/2009/04/17/article/charles_devportjr_where_s_the_outrage#nrcBlk_ArtComments

Here is my response:

In his recent editorial to your newspaper, Charles Davenport Jr. asks’ where's the outrage?’ over the Tax-and-spend government, which 'defies the law'. I will save the Constitutionality of health care reform and Davenport's other concerns of the 'Nanny State' for another day, but I will say this: 'promote the general welfare' is in the preamble to the Constitution. Health care reform is crucial to the overall health of our nation's economy, because like education, health care is by nature becoming more expensive relative to the cost of other goods in our economy.

So, the top 1 percent pays 39 percent of all federal income taxes. This is true. However Davenport and others who throw this out are being intellectually dishonest when they don't discuss the following salient points: the reason why the richest one percent pay 39 percent of all federal income taxes is because their incomes have more than tripled since 1979. Who would Davenport have pay more taxes, someone whose real income has risen by 1.2 million dollars, or someone whose income has risen by one thousand dollars, all the way up to $17,200 such as the bottom quintile? The fact of the matter is, the effective tax rate for the richest one percent has actually decreased nearly 6% since 1979. Tax cut for the rich long overdue? Mr. Davenport, it's already happened, but I'm guessing you know that, given your familiarity with CBO data.

In my work, I serve people in the bottom 20% of the economic ladder every day, and they are anything but 'slothful' or 'indolent'. May Davenport and others who disagree with me never have to choose between taking their child to the doctor for needed care or going to work to get a full paycheck, so gas for their twenty year old car can be purchased and the light bill can get paid in their rented single-wide, or the scores of other harsh decisions poor families face on a daily basis.

What I am concerned about is you don't see the top 5% at these 'Tea Parties'; it is those who stand to benefit from Obama's tax proposed tax policy. So, why do these 'Tea Party' participants continue to support policies against their own economic best interests? I think I know, but that, too, I will save for another day.

5 Reasons Why I am a Liberal

I was recently challenged to come up with five reasons I am a liberal by my R-W-N-J friend Lori. Not one to back down from a challenge, I submit the following:

1. I believe in what a 'liberal' is defined to be: one who subscribes to a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals. Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity.

2. I believe Liberalism is more conducive to the rational scientific thought process. True Liberals are not afraid to challenge the status quo, or even their own beliefs.

3. I believe Jesus was a liberal, that the 'golden rule' is wholly congruent with values of liberalism.

4. I believe Liberalism is better prepared to change with the times, as we learn more about our world and new technologies emerge.

5. I believe Liberalism acknowledges the complexity of mankind.

Mr. Irrelevant?

No, I am not talking about the 256th player to be chosen in the NFL draft later this month. I am referring to Rush Limbaugh.

A co-worker of mine whose intelligence I have a great deal of respect for recently informed me that she adores Rush Limbaugh. Now, I have a great fondness for Rush as well. Whenever I need some ridiculously off-the-wall nonsense, I look to Rush for my amusement. I laugh, but then again I have always enjoyed perverse, gallows humor. I admire Rush, like any other good comedian, for keeping a straight face. But sadly, my esteemed co-worker likes Rush for an entirely different reason- she actually agrees with him.

That got me thinking. When much was made about Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele and others begging Rush for forgiveness after slighting the conservative talk show host, I was elated. I mean, if Rush is the de-facto leader of the Republican Party, they will continue to suffer losses at the ballot box. I mean, nobody could possibly take Rush seriously, right?

Apparently I was wrong. There is still a segment of society out there that accept Rush at his word, even though he never provides factual information to support his ridiculous rantings. According to my co-worker, during his recent speech at CPAC, Rush said that liberal policies are 'cruel' to the very people for whom liberals profess to have compassion. Now, he evidently doesn't describe which specific liberal policies are 'cruel', but that just saves him the trouble of having to create an intelligent argument to support his position.

Another canard my co-worker swallows is Rush's 'income redistribution' rant. Now, one may expect that when one casually throws this emotional sound bite around as if he were talking about his favorite Chinese Buffet restaurant, some verifiable bits of information might be included. But this is a Rush rant, and Rush rants are oil to truth's water. Don't take my word for it. It is no accident that when one Googles 'Rush Limbaugh lies', over 1.1 million hits are retrieved. So Rush is calling Obama a commie for wanting to return to Reagan-era tax policy. This, at at time when the income distribution gap has widened to 1928 levels, which Alan Greenspan (who has never been accused of being a socialist) referred to as a 'very disturbing trend'. You can't get more disingenuous than that. Admittedly, the most confounding thing to me is that I suspect my co-worker earns somewhat less than the $500,000 that is commonly used by Rush as being victimized by Obama's tax policy. I can accept dogs walking on their front paws, men wrestling crocodiles, and Cub fans, but I'll never understand why anyone would support those whose policies are in direct conflict with his or her own best interest.

To my co-worker and others who accept Rush's rantings blindly: try removing the sound bites, talking points, old , long-since-been-disproven cliches, and unverifiable 'facts' that Rush 'didn't make up', then listen to what he has to say. I submit that what is left will be the equivalent of the sound of one hand clapping- one irrelevant tree falling in a forest devoid of humanity.