Total Pageviews

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Just More Right Wing Rhetoric

Striking Down the Voting Rights Act
I agree John Price; the minority is changing things with the overuse of the filibuster while the majority sits idly by. The country wants a gun purchaser to go through a background check, but the Senate cannot get the 60% majority. Oh, your complaint is about the majority wanting prayers back in school and at sporting events. I assume that’s for public schools and Christian prayers, or would you allow Muslim children to throw down their prayer rugs in the middle of a science test?

I have gone over prayer in school so much that I almost have it memorized. First, let’s break down the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Originally, that amendment only applied to the federal government but with the addition of the 14th Amendment, now the law is  also applied to the states. Would you agree that we shouldn’t be establishing a religion? If you do, then we would have to allow all prayers, Christian or not and adhere to their everyone’s special holidays. We are already behind in education.

The second part is known as the Free Exercise Clause and it means that the government cannot prevent you from worshiping. In Lemon v Kirtzman,guidelines were set to meet the Free Exercise Clause and they were:
· Have a secular purpose;
· Must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and
· Must not result in an excessive entanglement between government and religion
That also means that an employee of the state (teacher) cannot lead a prayer.

Why it is that today’s conservatives want to have so many barriers to cast a vote? So is it that in any given year, you want us to take our tax return to the voting place, so they can tell us if we are allowed to exercise our constitutional right? So, if we should happen to receive  a refundable credit large enough to eliminate our tax liability; then we shouldn’t be able to vote that year? I guess if you get laid off, then you should give up your right to vote? We vote for politicians and they cast the votes,so in your  "makers and takers"world, the poor should not be represented!I'd be willing to bet you are in the 47% unless you are still working,receiving enough taxable income to be paying taxes on your Social Security benefits.

You don’t get to define entitlements just because you are drawing from them. I’d be willing to bet that you will receive more benefits from Social Security and Medicare that you paid in. I know I will. An entitlement means that legislation was created that entitles us to receive Social Security and Medicare.

We don’t need an official language because everyone knows that in order to prosper in our country, English is a necessity. We should want everyone to vote regardless of their proficiency in English. It’s funny how those  politicians who want the bar ballots written for  Spanish-speaking people, but they will go on Spanish-speaking television and make campaign ads in Spanish. The business owners will put a sign on their window that reads “Se habla EspaƱola.” Some think that bilingual ballots are not worth the cost but think of what an amendment to make English the official language would cost. First it would take 2/3 Congress and the president signature; followed by a 2/3 state legislators and wait about ten years. I don’t think we’ve been hurt by not having an official language. I’ve always thought that speaking multiple languages will help us; not hinder us.

It’s well known that a consumption tax, the Fair Tax, or a flat tax will hurt the poor and that the rich would enjoy the benefits of such a system. The problem is inequality and stagnant wages. The poor already pay a consumption tax (sales tax) and payroll taxes. What we need is good paying jobs and we’ll get the revenues we need without having to resort to class warfare rhetoric.The people who supported the demonization of the 47% lost badly.

The Patriot Act has been reauthorized several times since 2001, so I’m not giving Congress a pass for not reading the bill. The Affordable Care Act is from the blue print of the Massachusetts healthcare plan Mitt Romney put in place in 2006. In fact, Jon Gruber, an MIT economist who advised Romney on his health care plan attended Obama’s health care meeting to offer input. Staffers usually read the bills for their bosses and then school them on the important parts of the bill.,so I’m not buying the “I didn’t have the chance to read the bill.” In fact it’s on the White House web page.

People lost their jobs in every one of the so call scandals Mr. Price mentioned. I doubt seriously that Mr. Price will come back and say that he was wrong about the IRS scandal because you never hear apologies from the right.

No comments: