Constructing ‘Race’…Should we even use it?

The term ‘race’ was first used by Francois Bernier (1620-1688) who concluded that human beings do not make up the same ‘race’, but he never gave a concrete definition. The term ‘race’ did not have a fixed definition (you can see the term ‘race’ being constructed) until Carolus Linnaeus said there were four types of human beings with each corresponding to a particular geographic location. Linnaeus neglected to respect their differences according to Georges-Louis Buffon. Georges-Louis Buffon comes along in 1749 to “clear” things up. As you can probably guess the term ‘race’ still lacks a consistent definition (most likely because it is an ambiguous term). Wait, wait don’t worry finally someone gives ‘race’ a fixed definition, Philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant reacted very strongly to his predecessors. So, in 1777, Kant based his definition of  ‘race’ on an individuals skin color. This classification of ‘race’ is still used today in the 21st century. In the early 1900s Kant’s student (Herder) rejected the idea of race saying,

No one people is superior to another. Furthermore, no people is without culture and no culture is better than another. Cultures differ from one another, ‘but these differences are of degree, not of kind.’

‘Overall and in the end,’ writes Herder, ‘everything is only a shade of one and the same great portrait that extends across all the spaces and times of the earth. All peoples contribute to humankind and encourage the progression toward humanity, ‘not as straight, nor as uniform, but as stretching in all directions, will all manner of turns and twists.’ Moreover, as Herder writes, ‘Every nation has its center of happiness within itself, as every ball has its center of gravity!” In other words, Herder was interested in the internal and external influences on a culture and emphasized the individuality of a given culture.

Yes, the idea of ‘race’ exists, the experience of ‘race’ exists, a racialized world exists. But, ‘race’ itself does not; it is only an idea brought about during a time in world history when human difference was first realized on a global scale.

As you can, ‘race’ is a social construct. It is not a fixed identity, it is socially decided. For example Brazil has 40 different ‘races’ but your ‘race’ is dependent on money. Even in Brazil the more money you have the whiter you are. Harris (1964) writes:

Richer a dark man gets the lighter the racial category to will he will be assigned by friends, family, business, and so on. Similarly, light skinned individuals who rank extremely low in terms of education and occupation criteria are frequently regarded as actually being darker in color than they really are.

Racial categories and the meaning attached to ‘race’ makes sense only in their historical context and in light of specific relations. ‘Race’ can be seen as an ideology whose components were spelled out explicitly in social policy.  These components can be analytically derived from years of publications and racist behavior. Sociological and historical studies have decided on 6 widespread agreements from analyzing the publications.

1. Race-based societies perceive designated racial groups as biologically discrete and exclusive groups, and certain physical characteristics (e.g., skin color, hair texture, eye shape, and other facial features) become markers of race status.

2. They hold that races are naturally unequal and therefore must be ranked hierarchically (inequality is fundamental to all racial systems). In the United States and South Africa, Africans and their descendants occupy the lowest level of the hierarchy.

3. They assume that each race has distinctive cultural behaviors linked to their biology. The idea of inherited forms of behavior is fundamental to the concept of race and is one basis for the belief in the separation of races (as, e.g., Black music, Black theater, Black literature, Black dance, Black forms of dress, Black language, etc.).

4. They assume that both physical features and behavior are innate and inherited.

5. They assume that the differences among races are therefore profound and unalterable. This justifies segregation of the races in schools, neighborhoods, churches, recreational centers, health centers, and so forth, and proscriptions against intermarriage or inter-mating.

6. They have racial classifications stipulated in the legal and social system (racial identity by law). (This obtained until recently in the United States and South Africa.)

But, these components are not the sole reason, ‘race’ is culturally invented ideas and beliefs about these differences that constitute the meaning of race.


Published in: on April 29, 2010 at 5:53 pm  Leave a Comment  

The Ariz. Immigration law….

As you can imagine, the new Arizona immigration law, has become a hot button issue. As it should be. It is a breeding ground for racial profiling, unjust,un-American, will create a great distrust between minorities and police, and will require those who have been here legal to carry id. Once slaves became free after the Civil War they were also required to carry id. As was true during apartheid in South Africa. Along with the aforementioned problematic effects of this legislation are the effects it will have on surrounding states. Do law makers in Arizona actually believe this will stop illegal immigrants? Well the honest answer is, no. The other answer is, they don’t care. They don’t care that instead of immigrants coming to Arizona they will go either east or west to California, New Mexico, and Texas. Which in turn will cause problems for those stats. There is some good news…This legislation is unconstitutional.

History always as the answers. In a New York Times op-ed, Linda Greenhouse writes:

Rather, I’ll offer a reflection on how, a generation ago, another of the country’s periodic anti-immigrant spasms was handled by the Supreme Court. In 1975, Texas passed a law to deprive undocumented immigrant children of a free public education. Many thousands of children — a good number of whom were on the road to eventual citizenship under immigration laws that were notably less harsh back then — faced being thrown out of school and deprived of a future.

In June 1982, by a vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court struck down the Texas law. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote for the majority that the constitutional guarantee of equal protection prohibited the state from imposing “a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status.” Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., a Nixon appointee and the swing justice of his day, provided the fifth vote. The law “threatens the creation of an underclass of future citizens and residents,” he wrote.

I have no doubt that but for that ruling, public school systems all over the country would be checking papers and tossing away their undocumented students like so much playground litter. Blocked from that approach, local governments now try others. The city of Hazleton, Pa., passed a law that made it a crime for a landlord to rent an apartment to an undocumented immigrant. A federal district judge struck down the law on the ground that immigration is the business of the federal government, not of Hazleton, Pa.

Indeed, federal pre-emption would appear to be the most promising route for attacking the Arizona law. Supreme Court precedents make clear that immigration is a federal matter and that the Constitution does not authorize the states to conduct their own foreign policies.

Eugene Robinson also has a great op-ed on the Arizona legislation explaining the problematic effects of the legislation….Eugene Robinson writes:

Arizona’s draconian new immigration law is an abomination — racist, arbitrary, oppressive, mean-spirited, unjust. About the only hopeful thing that can be said is that the legislation, which Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed Friday, goes so outrageously far that it may well be unconstitutional.

The law requires police to question anyone they “reasonably suspect” of being an undocumented immigrant — a mandate for racial profiling on a massive scale. Legal immigrants will be required to carry papers proving that they have a right to be in the United States. Those without documentation can be charged with the crime of trespassing and jailed for up to six months.

Let me interrupt this tirade to point out that while Arizona has unquestionably done the wrong thing, it is understandable that exasperated officials believed they had to dosomething. Immigration policy and border security are federal responsibilities, and Washington has failed miserably to address what Arizonans legitimately see as a crisis.

One of the concrete problems with the law treating undocumented immigrants as criminals is that it gives those without papers a powerful incentive to stay as far away from police as possible. This will only make it more difficult for local police to investigate crimes and track down fugitive offenders, because no potential witness who is undocumented will come forward.

What happen to America the land of promise? The land of the free? Oh wait it was never really that. Through out our history ( and still today) we have discriminated and oppressed all immigrants and minorities. If you were not of the European, White, Protestant descent that was too bad. Although, as you can imagine, if you were White, once the ‘settlers’ of America realized you could assimilate easily (within a few generations), it became a lot easier and faster to be accepted than if you were of a different skin color. If we truly want to stay a world power, we need to start being more open-minded, less ethnocentric, and more inclusive instead of exclusive. It we carry out those things we will once again become the great melting pot many believe American to be. Immigrants are not a hinderance, they are a benefit to our society.

I urge you to read both op-eds.

Published in: on April 28, 2010 at 1:13 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

Malcolm X assassin Hagan is freed on parole in NYC

So within a week John Hinckley Jr., who attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan, and Thomas Hagan, who was part of the assassination killing of Malcolm X are both being released.

Washington Post reporting:

The only man ever to admit involvement in the assassination of Malcolm X was freed on parole Tuesday, 45 years after he helped gun down the civil rights leader.

Thomas Hagan was the last man still serving time in the 1965 killing, part of the skein of violence that wound through the cultural and political upheaval of the 1960s. He was freed from a Manhattan prison where he spent two days a week under a work-release program.

Hagan, 69, has repeatedly expressed sorrow for being one of the gunmen who fired on Malcolm X, killing one of the civil rights era’s most polarizing and compelling figures. One of the groups dedicated to Malcolm X’s memory condemned Hagan’s parole………..

Article continues….

The assassins gunned down Malcolm X out of anger at his split with the leadership of the Nation of Islam, the black Muslim movement for which he had once served as a prominent spokesman, said Hagan, then known as Talmadge X Hayer. Malcolm X had spoken out against its leader, Elijah Muhammad, in comments that some of Muhammad’s followers denounced as slander.

At the time, “I thought I was fighting for truth and right,” Hagan said in a 1977 sworn statement that aimed, unsuccessfully, to get his co-defendants’ convictions overturned.

Published in: on April 27, 2010 at 8:28 pm  Leave a Comment  

Democrats attempt to rein in insurance rates

Los Angeles Times reporting:

Congressional Democrats have begun pushing legislation giving government regulators greater authority to block big increases in health insurance premiums, kicking off what is expected to be a years-long process of revising and expanding their major healthcare overhaul.

The move, which comes less than a month after President Obama signed the healthcare legislation, is aimed at giving all states the power to stop premium hikes deemed excessive and allowing the federal government to step in if the states don’t act.

But why do they need to have this amendment? Because the bill isn’t strong enough!!! Efforts at bi-partisanship were really worth it, right Democrats?

The health care reform bill passed by Congress last month requires insurers to explain “unreasonable” premium increases but otherwise does not provide for federal regulation of insurance rates. The Feinstein plan would allow the federal government to step in. (via Politics Daily)

This will definitely strengthening the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which still needs a lot of strengthening. Republicans should actually like this amendment,enough to vote for it,  if it comes to a vote, because it gives states the power to regulate price increases not the federal government. I still believe the best way to keep health care cost down is a strong public option or an option to buy into Medicare at any age. Hopefully, a public option amendment will come to a vote in the near future. But, knowing how D.C works it will take another 50 years.

Published in: on April 27, 2010 at 8:15 pm  Leave a Comment  

Progress, Regress- Economic Performance Under Presidents Clinton and Bush

The following report by the Center for American Progress lays out perfectly why progressive economic policies, under President Clinton, created economic growth while supply side economic or Republican style economics, under President Bush, created economic growth for the lucky few, the rich. Makes, I think, a great argument against trickle down economic policies and a great argument for progressive economic polices.

To summarize:


President Clinton took office at a time of large deficits and high unemployment. The country was heading in the wrong direction after more than a decade of supply side economics. President Clinton turned the country around by adopting progressive economic policies that focused on reducing the budget deficit, halting the widening gap between rich and poor, and spurring innovation and investment. By the end of his term, these progressive policies had yielded the longest sustained period of economic growth in American history and more than 23 million new jobs.


Despite the clear success of progressive policies in the 1990s, President Bush returned the country to the failed economic strategy of focusing on the very wealthy under the theory that their success would “trickle down” to everyone else. It didn’t work out that way. President Bush cut taxes repeatedly for high-income earners and on capital gains, with the promise that those cuts would result in impressive growth for everyone. The rich were doing very well after eight years of supply side policies, but everyone else was falling back. Median incomes and wages were down, poverty was up, job growth was anemic, and unemployment was beginning to soar.

The report looks at job,economic growth, household income, wages, poverty, child poverty, health coverage and pensions, business investment, deficits and debt, and spending and revenue. It lays it out in simple graphs and charts. Personally I believe these graphs and charts speak louder than words do. These particular graphs and charts speak extremely loud and make a solid argument for progressive economic policies. I will update this blog post later (hopefully, depends if I can find the graphs and charts) and compare past presidents, Democrats vs. Republicans. I want to see if this is true throughout history.

Full report.

Published in: on April 27, 2010 at 2:36 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , ,

Rethinking Crime—Again

Although violent crimes rates may have decreased prison growth is at an all time high. The six steps to zero prison growth are discussed. It is a must read.

John Di Iulio writes:

Six Steps to Zero Prison Growth

First of all, empanel a bipartisan presidential crime commission like the one that President Lyndon Johnson empanelled some four decades ago to devise better crime measures; study crime trends; conduct field hearings from New York to New Orleans; debate new crime-fighting technologies (like, in our day, the use of DNA databases); and weigh the wisdom of having an advisory staff on crime within the West Wing, a sort of crime-focused National Security Council.

Second, legislate age 18 as a compulsory national school attendance requirement, or amend all relevant federal education legislation so that states, on penalty of losing federal funding, must comply with their own respective compulsory school age requirements (many are age 16) and offer best-practices anti-truancy programs. In several recent co-authored reports sponsored by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and issued by Civic Enterprises, I have documented the high school dropout crisis and the associated truancy epidemic. Several studies by others have confirmed that low graduation rates are strongly linked to high crime rates and high incarceration rates, especially for low-income minority males. By increasing inner-city graduation rates, even by single digits, we might well lower juvenile crime rates by double digits.

Third, mandate that juvenile probation agencies emulate or replicate programs like Philadelphia’s Youth Violence Reduction Partnership (YVRP). I helped devise the YVRP in 1998. The program targets local adjudicated youth and young adults aged 14 to 24, most of whom have committed one or more violent felonies. The YVRP assigns these “youth partners” to “street workers” with whom they meet almost daily, and it assures that they get whatever drug treatment or other supports they need. A just-released impact study by Public/Private Ventures finds that YVRP participation reduces juvenile violent crime by 10 percent.

Fourth, each year through 2020, double the 2009 levels of federal aid to state and local parole agencies for programs that find ex-prisoners jobs, and to faith-based and neighborhood partnerships that mobilize adult mentors for some of the over two million children in America who have a parent in prison. The empirical research is clear: Getting jobs for ex-prisoners is a necessary but insufficient condition for reducing recidivism rates that typically run around two-thirds after three years out. Since 2000, the federal government has invested slightly more in job-mentoring programs for ex-prisoners and, in recent years, it has helped fund mentoring for more than 100,000 children of prisoners. But the investment remains paltry.

Fifth, repeal all federal mandatory-minimum drug sentencing policies and rewrite federal laws to give states new financial incentives to use scarce prison space for violent adult offenders while speeding parole for drug-only offenders. I do not make this suggestion lightly. BJS data indicate that eight in ten prisoners confined in state and federal prisons have a prior conviction history and about two in three prisoners have a history of convictions for violence; that the average released prisoner has more than 15 prior arrests for serious offenses; and that a single year’s worth of prison releases accounts for about 8 percent of all murder arrests and 9 percent of all arrests for robbery. However, based on both BJS data and prisoner self-report surveys, it seems clear that most of the roughly 400,000 persons incarcerated as drug felons in state or federal prisons today are “drug-only felons” whose sole felony crimes (including ones for which they were never arrested) have been drug crimes involving no use or threat of violence and no major role as illegal drug manufacturers or distributors. At least 100,000 of these could be placed under intensive parole supervision (complete with mandated drug treatment where necessary) tomorrow with little or no adverse impact on crime rates. The financial savings would be more than sufficient to fund all of the foregoing proposals.

Sixth, legalize marijuana for medically prescribed uses, and seriously consider decriminalizing it altogether. Last year there were more than 800,000 marijuana-related arrests. The impact of these arrests on crime rates was likely close to zero. There is almost no scientific evidence showing that pot is more harmful to its users’ health, more of a “gateway drug,” or more crime-causing in its effects than alcohol or other legal narcotic or mind-altering substances. Our post-2000 legal drug culture has untold millions of Americans, from the very young to the very old, consuming drugs in unprecedented and untested combinations and quantities. Prime-time commercial television is now a virtual medicine cabinet (“just ask your doctor if this drug is right for you”). Big pharmaceutical companies function as all-purpose drug pushers. And yet we expend scarce federal, state, and local law enforcement resources waging “war” against pot users. That is insane.

Full article.

Published in: on April 26, 2010 at 6:04 pm  Leave a Comment  

Why we need a Financial Product Safety Commission.

Elizabeth Warren, Chair of Congressional Oversight for TARP, writes about why we need a financial consumer protection agency :

The Financial Product Safety Commission

Clearly, it is time for a new model of financial regulation, one focused primarily on consumer safety rather than corporate profitability. Financial products should be subject to the same routine safety screening that now governs the sale of every toaster, washing machine, and child’s car seat sold on the American market.

The model for such safety regulation is the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), an independent health and safety regulatory agency founded in 1972 by the Nixon Administration. The CPSC’s mission is to protect the American public from risks of injury and death from products used in the home, school, and recreation. The agency has the authority to develop uniform safety standards, order the recall of unsafe products, and ban products that pose unreasonable risks. In establishing the Commission, Congress recognized that “the complexities of consumer products and the diverse nature and abilities of consumers using them frequently result in an inability of users to anticipate risks and to safeguard themselves adequately.”

The evidence clearly shows that CPSC is a cost-effective agency. Since it was established, product-related death and injury rates in the United States have decreased substantially. The CPSC estimates that just three safety standards for three products alone–cigarette lighters, cribs, and baby walkers–save more than $2 billion annually. The annual estimated savings is more than CPSC’s total cumulative budget since its inception.

So why not create a Financial Product Safety Commission (FPSC)? Like its counterpart for ordinary consumer products, this agency would be charged with responsibility to establish guidelines for consumer disclosure, collect and report data about the uses of different financial products, review new financial products for safety, and require modification of dangerous products before they can be marketed to the public. The agency could review mortgages, credit cards, car loans, and a number of other financial products, such as life insurance and annuity contracts. In effect, the FPSC would evaluate these products to eliminate the hidden tricks and traps that make some of them far more dangerous than others.

An FPSC would promote the benefits of free markets by assuring that consumers can enter credit markets with confidence that the products they purchase meet minimum safety standards. No one expects every customer to become an engineer to buy a toaster that doesn’t burst into flames, or analyze complex diagrams to buy an infant car seat that doesn’t collapse on impact. By the same reasoning, no customer should be forced to read the fine print in 30-plus-page credit card contracts to determine whether the company claims it can seize property paid for with the credit card or raise the interest rate by more than 20 points if the customer gets into a dispute with the water company…….

A Well-Regulated Market

When markets work, they produce value for both buyers and sellers, both borrowers and lenders. But the basic premise of any free market is full information. When a lender can bury a sentence at the bottom of 47 lines of text saying it can change any term at any time for any reason, the market is broken……..

Personal responsibility will always play a critical role in dealing with credit cards, just as personal responsibility remains a central feature in the safe use of any other product. But a Financial Product Safety Commission could eliminate some of the most egregious tricks and traps in the credit industry. And for every family who avoids a trap or doesn’t get caught by a trick, that’s regulation that works.

Read full article.


Published in: on April 26, 2010 at 5:20 pm  Leave a Comment  

Will the financial regulatory bill prevent another panic?

The Obama administration, especially Tim Geithner (Secretary of the Treasury), have repeatedly said that the financial reform bill being debated in Congress will not completely prevent another financial crisis. As you can probably guess, it is difficult to see into the future and guess the kind of money-making schemes Wall Street will come up with next. But, what it can do is help mitigate the next financial crisis and protect the tax payers.

Robert Samuelson, in his most recent Newsweek article explains:

History counsels caution. Every financial reform, even if mostly successful, ultimately gives way to another because there are unintended consequences or unforeseen problems.

By its nature, a panic is unanticipated. Reform may resemble generals fighting the last war. Suppose the next financial crisis originates in runaway federal debt, which undermines confidence in the vast market for Treasury securities. Interest rates and currency values would react violently; the ripple effects would spread globally. The irony would be clear: While preaching financial reform, the White House and Congress fomented the next crisis by sanctioning long-term budget deficits.

Samuelson then goes on to explain what the current financial reform bill omits, which would make it a much stronger bill.

The legislation also omits the strongest safeguards against financial meltdowns: tougher capital requirements. Capital mainly represents the stake of shareholders in financial institutions; it provides a cushion against losses. Pre-Lehman, banks’ capital represented about 10 percent of their assets. Some experts would raise that as high as 15 percent. But the legislation leaves capital requirements to regulators, led by the Fed and Treasury. They are negotiating with other countries to set global standards. The outcome is unclear, and there’s a dilemma: Overly tough capital rules will discourage lending.

As I stated earlier this bill will mitigate future crisis, not eliminate or prevent. Samuelson agrees and writes:

Still, the legislation seems on balance a plus. Though not eliminating the threat of future crises, “it makes them less likely,” says Litan. The “too big to fail” problem has been mitigated, if not entirely solved

How does the bill carry out this?

Under the congressional proposals, the government could shut down crucial financial institutions gradually and recoup the costs through taxes on other financial institutions.

But, there is still a problem. By not completely getting rid of too-big-to-fail institutions, you are still allowing the banks to believe that it is OK to take risk, because there is still money to prop them up. They still have the privilege that those on Main Street do not.

Samuelson writes:

Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute thinks close regulation of too-big-to-fail financial organizations will give them a privileged status and make them “tools of the U.S. government.” Nevertheless, something seems better than nothing.

In conclusion, Samuelson writes:

All this sounds encouraging, but we can’t know the full consequences of financial reform. It’s not just that many issues remain unsettled, including the “Volcker rule” (named after former Fed chairman Paul Volcker, it would restrict banks’ ability to do trading for their own accounts) and the powers of the proposed consumer finance agency. There’s a deeper reason for humility. The financial system’s size, complexity and global nature defy attempts to chart its future. No “reform” is, or can be, forever.

Break up the too-big-to-fail institutions. Create an independent consumer protection agency. Increase capital requirements. And eliminate derivative trading, or at least bring them out of the shadows. But, until the banking industry no longer makes up 60% of our GDP, it will always have the possibility of causing crisis after crisis.

Published in: on April 26, 2010 at 4:47 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: ,

Is the Tea Party Over?

I never thought the Tea Party was going to be that influential to begin with, especially since,when asked about policy they responded with Fox News talking points. They have no substantive value, they have always seemed more like an angry mob.

Sara Robinson of Campaign for America’s Progress writes in her blog post, Tough Times for the Tea Party?:

Is the Tea Party over? It’s too early to say. But it doesn’t look good right now. Overexposed by a fickle media, jilted by FOX News, riven by a growing schism, confirmed as nothing more than a bunch of corporate tools, and increasingly viewed as potentially toxic by even the GOP’s most ardent conservatives, they’ve hit a bad patch that may be very hard to pull out of in time for the fall elections.

I sure hope the media sees the Tea Party for what it truly is and starts reporting on actual policy, so the American people can become informed.

Published in: on April 25, 2010 at 8:47 pm  Leave a Comment  

Tax expenditures-$1.1 trillion

Debating the American tax system or federal deficit? Don’t forget the $1.1 trillion in tax expenditures (the breaks and credits individuals and businesses get courtesy of Uncle Sam). The debate about the deficit usually involves discretionary spending (part of the U.S. Federal Budget that is negotiated between the President and Congress each year as part of the budget process).

Why are tax expenditures left out of the debate? Because everyone, individuals and business, love receiving that check from Uncle Sam. Not all tax expenditures are bad. But, when they don’t benefit society as a whole (good) and only benefit corporations or the wealthy (bad) that in turn either increases taxes for those who did not receive the tax break or reduces public services. So, it is imperative members of congress, when analyzing and debating the federal budget, look at all parts of the budget, not just the parts that are politically popular. If congress is serious about balancing the budget, they need to look at all the avenues.

Here is a simple example of a tax expenditure: (Via Citizens for Tax Justice report)

A simple example of a tax expenditure might be a break that Congress enacts in the corporate tax, giving a particular group of companies a benefit totaling $10 billion. The effect is the same as if Congress simply provided a subsidy through direct expenditures of $10 billion for those companies. Either way, the companies are $10 billion richer and there is $10 billion less to fund public services. In other words, other taxpayers who did not receive the special break have to pay for it through increased taxes or reduced public services.

The approach to evaluating tax expenditures (via Think Progress)

Some of these subsidies make sense. Others warrant a closer look. Funding for those that don’t work should be rightly eliminated. And funding for those that do make sense should continue.

Though tax expenditures are a form of government spending, they feel like tax cuts because they are implemented through the tax code. This makes them politically popular; politicians find it easier to pass government spending programs when they can sell them as tax cuts.

What’s more is that Congress fails to regularly review these tax expenditures, and the government’s budgeting process largely ignores tax expenditure spending. This lack of scrutiny, combined with their popular veneer, makes them a privileged form of government spending that once put in place are hard to dislodge.

Isaiah Poole of the Campaign for America’s Future writes:

Last week Citizens Against Government Waste released the 2010 edition of its highly publicized “Pig Book,” which highlights what the organization believes is questionable government spending. The organization’s website, however, does not show that the organization has ever done an equally comprehensive look at how the government “spends” its ability to bestow favored tax status on individuals and businesses. That’s typical of the one-sided look at the deficit problem that is perpetuated by conservatives and by much of the media. Instead of looking for what can taken away from the elderly and low-income people, any group discussing fiscal responsibility would have to look at how we can identify and eliminate tax breaks that keep us from reducing the deficit and investing in our future.

Links to read entire articles.

Campaign for America’s Future

Think Progress

Citizens for Tax Justice

Published in: on April 25, 2010 at 7:47 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: ,