Sara MacCalman Responds to Right Wing News

Sara MacCalman is a gifted writer who gave me permission to repost her response to an obnoxious meme circulated in Facebook by a group calling itself "Right Wing News."  It's brief but wonderful.

I guess you must be referring to the old America where one person could support a family, where kids could go to college without going into debt, where the water was still relatively clean, where there was a thriving manufacturing economy and finding products that were made in America wasn't just about impossible.  That fine old America where 30% of workers were union members, where the tax rate for wealthy Americans was 91% (1950),where the majority of people actually voted and they voted on paper ballots counted by honest, trustworthy local citizens.  Those were the days, that's for sure.  The days when the media was not all owned by one or two corporations whose goal is to keep people sedated with nonsense and out-right lies, when people trusted and respected the officials they elected and when campaigns were based on issues, not the amount of money raised.  The America where we all valued that which we held in common, like our public schools and our public land. Where we, in the form of our government, dealt with problems such as crime from the standpoint of public safety and restorative justice rather than the profit motive.  I would say that most of us miss that America.

Sara MacCalman is a self-described “5th generation Montanan, an avid reader of everything I can get my hands on, a permaculturist who feels that the most radical thing to do in these mad times is to grow as much of your family's food as is humanly possible, a firm believer that most dogs are finer human beings than most people, and a glutton for hope in any of its myriad forms.”

Thirsty, Officer?

That's the Way I Always Heard It Should Be - Carly Simon

Mark Richardson on Michigan's Proposal 1

I ran across a well-researched, well-written analysis of Proposal 1 – Michigan’s complex, convoluted, controversial ballot measure that’ll be decided by voters this coming Tuesday – a few days ago that conveys the reasons why the “road and bridge repair proposal” should be defeated much better than I can. The author, Mark Richardson, gave me permission to share it here for “What’s the Diehl?” readers.

After much study and a lot of soul-searching, I’ve decided to vote no on Proposal 1. Needless to say, I’m speaking for myself only and no other organization or group I’m associated with.

I understand very well that our roads are in deplorable condition. And contrary to conservative opponents of Proposal 1, I believe we need to increase taxes to repair and maintain them. We spend less per capita on roads than any other state.

I also understand that delaying needed road repairs just adds to the costs, and that Michigan residents pay a “hidden tax,” in the form of auto repairs, as a result of bad roads. I am also aware of the earmarks for education and local governments in the legislation appended to the ballot proposal. I understand how schools and municipalities have struggled and I know that additional money would help.

None of these facts are enough to persuade me to vote yes.

Proposal 1 would virtually complete, and via constitutional amendment cement into place, the largest tax shift from business to individuals in Michigan history.

Beginning in 2011, Governor Snyder and the Republicans have moved to minimize or eliminate the tax burden on business in this state. They replaced the Michigan business tax with a flat 6% tax that resulted in a $1.7 billion tax cut for business. In 2014 they eliminated the business personal property tax. This tax cut starts out at $100 million in 2016, increases to $350 million in 2017, and to $500 million per year in 10 years. All in all, Snyder and company will have reduced business taxes by about $2 billion per year, give or take, when the cuts are fully phased in.

At the same time the Republicans have increased taxes on individuals. Eliminating deductions and credits, taxing pensions, and canceling a scheduled income tax rate reduction increased individual taxes by about $1.4 billion per year starting in 2012. Now, Proposal 1 asks us to increase the sales tax by 17% and the motor vehicle fuel tax, initially, by over 100%. These, together with other measures, such as the elimination of registration fee discounts based on vehicle depreciation, amount to a combined tax increase of about $2 billion additional dollars to be paid, again, mostly by individuals.

I believe in fair and progressive taxation. Proposal 1 would result in a tax system that is more regressive and more unfair than ever before. Almost 100,000 businesses in Michigan pay no taxes at all anymore. The business share of overall taxation is now smaller in Michigan than it is in 47 states. On the other hand, Michigan would end up tied for the second highest sales tax rate in the country if Proposal 1 is adopted. The increases in the sales tax and fuel tax will add hundreds of dollars to the tax burden of average households. The proposed increase in the earned income tax credit will help, but not by enough to offset the increase.

I might feel differently if I thought Proposal 1 would actually solve our problems. But reliable estimates are that it will actually take at least $2 billion or more per year to put our roads in acceptable condition. Proposal 1 would make $1.2 billion available, raising questions as to whether it would even raise enough money to be effective.

Moreover, road funding will depend even more heavily on fuel tax revenues, which may continue to decline as vehicles become more efficient and as people drive fewer miles. Declining fuel tax revenue is the reason we fell behind on road maintenance to begin with! In short, I do not see Proposal 1 as the answer to our road problems.

Supporters on the progressive side say the alternatives are worse. In the short term, they are. I have no illusions about what this legislature would try to do. But we should bear in mind that the next election is just 18 months from now. We should keep fighting for the philosophy of government we believe in, now and next fall.

It seems to me that the economic and social harm to this state which would result from the system of regressive taxation we are being asked to ratify far outweighs the risks harm from continuing to fight for a fair and feasible funding mechanism for the roads.

*                                                  *                                             *

Click here for the official ballot language. And click here for MLive’s slideshow entitled, “Michigan Proposal 1 and the 10 laws it would trigger.”

Mark Richardson, 64, is an attorney who focuses on environmental and zoning and planning law. A graduate of Michigan State University and Wayne State University Law School, he worked in a county prosecutor’s office for over 15 years where, as chief of the water quality unit, he prosecuted environmental lawbreakers. He teaches environmental law and policy at Oakland University, serves on his local planning commission, and helped create both the Michigan Environmental Council and the Michigan League of Conservation Voters. Mark and his wife, Susan, are the parents of two adult children. He’s been to Alaska twice in recent years, fishing and hiking in the wilderness, and enjoys baseball, cycling and social media.

Let Me Help You

Prince - Breakfast Can Wait

Why I'm Not Voting for Hillary Clinton

Former First Lady, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made it official: she’s running for President of the United States. This surprised no one, of course, except probably the scruffy, bearded guy who lives in the woods near my home and mumbles to himself a lot. The “She’s In!” fundraising e-mails have already flooded my inbox and the fawning Facebook posts are cluttering my news feed.

I’m not particularly happy about this.

I’ve read a lot of disappointing news and information about Secretary Clinton (see below); the only reason to vote for her, it seems, is because four U.S. Supreme Court justices are over 70 (Stephen Breyer is 74, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia are 76 and cancer survivor Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 79) and we wouldn’t want President Ted Cruz or Rand Paul – I shudder even as I type this – to chose their successors.

I understand why presidential Supreme Court appointments are important but you’ll never convince me that the best reason to support a Democratic candidate is because she wouldn’t appoint the same *ssh*l*s to the court that a GOP candidate would.

I’m pretty sick and tired of this “Hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils,” “Don’t be an ideological purist” and “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” crap too. I want to be excited again – like my parents were about JFK in 1960 and Anita and I were about BHO in 2008. These candidates were not perfect and pure yet they attracted voters to the polls. “I Offer Hope and Change” is more alluring than “I Could Be Even Worse.”

Why is Secretary Clinton the wrong choice? I thought you’d never ask:

• She’s pro-fracking.

• She’s too cozy with Big Oil.

• She’s too cozy with low-wage, pro-sprawl, anti-union Wal-Mart – she served on its Board of Directors from 1986 to 1992.

• She’s too cozy with Wall Street (read Rolling Stone’s “Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs Problem.”)

• She was one of the most hawkish members of President Obama's cabinet, rattling sabers about a nuclear Iran and bragging about having presided over the imposition of "crippling sanctions" on the Iranian economy during her tenure as secretary of state.

• She strongly defended Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's handling of Israel’s criminal and despicable assault on Gaza.

• She voted for the Patriot Act and accused whistleblower Edward Snowden of “supporting terrorism” for revealing the seamy side of American military operations to the American people.

• She co-sponsored legislation to criminalize flag-burning.

• She voted to loosen restrictions on cell phone wiretapping.

• She’s pro-death penalty.

• She voted for the Iraq war and it took her more than ten years to express regret for that vote.

• She’s supported off-shore oil drilling.

• She refuses to reveal where she stands on the Keystone XL pipeline proposal.

• She’s pro-GMO – even going so far as to appoint a former Monsanto lobbyist to her team of campaign advisors.

• She’s pandered to the pro-censorship crowd when it comes to video games.

• In 2005, she supported the Workplace Religious Freedom Act which, according to the ACLU, would effectively have legalized discrimination.

This is just a partial list. (Visit this link for more about where she stands on the issues.) You can’t say I haven’t done my homework.

I dig U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont). But Senator Warren continues to stress that she’s not running and I doubt Senator Sanders can garner the support he needs to capture the nomination. Fortunately there’s already another option: former Democratic Governor of Maryland and Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley.

Governor Martin O'Malley

Click here to watch Governor O’Malley’s appearance on “ABC This Week” with George Snuffleupagus. Click here to read “Martin O’Malley Says Republicans Who Hate Obama More than Ayatollah Are Unfit to Be in Government.” And click here to read The New Yorker’s “A real Democratic Challenger for Hillary Clinton?” by John Cassidy.

Although he does come across as a politician and it’s too bad he thinks a nuclear Iran is the biggest threat we face, an O’Malley candidacy would be more exciting than Hillary Clinton’s in my opinion. And I share the governor’s belief that our leaders should be elected, not crowned or appointed.

It’s possible, too, that someone else will emerge that excites and energizes progressives more than the We Might As Well candidate. I sure hope her coronation isn’t inevitable as some Facebook commenters believe.

I concede that I share Secretary Clinton’s position on some issues (e.g. supporting a woman’s right to choose, cracking down on sex trafficking, pro-animal protection, pro-clean air, pro-gay marriage, pro-medical marijuana). I don’t subscribe to the “Hillary’s evil ‘cause she sent private e-mails while Secretary of State” crap, I don’t support the National Rifle Association’s efforts to vilify her for being anti-gun, and I don’t hold her responsible for what happened in Benghazi in 2012. (The GOP, which conveniently neglects to admit that it slashed funding for U.S. embassy security by $128 million, bears responsibility for what happened there in my book. While Secretary of State in 2011, Clinton warned that inadequate funding represented a threat to U.S. security.) It’s also past time for a woman to sit at the desk in the Oval Office.

Just not this woman.

Here are links for more information:

At one point – in January of 2013 – I pledged to knock on doors for Madame Secretary. Read why here.

I love how she doesn’t take herself too seriously. Visit this link to see her with Amy Poehler on “Saturday Night Live” in 2008.

And there’s more:

“There’s a Reality About Hillary that Many Liberals Need to Face.”

“Five Reasons No Progressive Should Support Hillary Clinton.”

“Eight Things You Need to Know About Hillary Clinton and Climate Change.”

“Hillary Clinton is Running for President. Here are 11 Stories About Her that You Should Read Now.”

“Why Hillary Clinton is Probably Going to Win the 2016 Election.”

If you like a little fluff with your research, check out “Five Things You Should Know About Hillary Clinton.”

And for a comprehensive list of articles, check out The New Yorker’s “Hillary Clinton: A Reading List.”



Sources: Act.Watchdog.Net, Forwardprogressives.com. truth-out.org, Grist.org, NPR.org, Tampa Bay Times, New York magazine, Rolling Stone magazine, OntheIssues.org, CNN.com, NewYorker.com, AddictingInfo.org, Huffington Post, ABCNews.com.