On Wednesday, Josh Shapiro and Leslie Richards will take office as Montgomery County Commissioners after winning the most important political race in the state in November. As you must know, this will be the first time in this history of the County that Democrats have controlled the County Commission.

At the same time Joe Hoeffel will be leaving public office, perhaps for the last time.

But everyone, from Josh and Leslie down, know that without the efforts of Joe Hoeffel, there would be no Democratic majority on the County Commission in Montgomery County. Without Joe, Allyson Schwartz would probably not be the member of Congress for the 13th Congressional district which includes a big part of Montgomery County and which Joe once represented. And many other Democratic public officials would not old the offices they do today.

The contemporary Democratic Party in Montgomery County is, to a very large degree, the creation of Joe Hoeffel. The “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” agenda Joe has been articulating for years is the platform of Democrats in Montgomery County. The reputation for rectitude and integrity that Democrats have in Montgomery County—and that was so important to the victory in November—is in large part due to the reputation of Joe Hoeffel.

Continue reading »

 

Today in the Inquirer, Kevin Ferris channels PA Senator Pat Toomey, who has been providing a Republican spin on the failure of the Super Committee.

In the imagniarium of Pat Toomey and Kevin Ferris, the Senator courageously broke with fellow Republicans to propose a balanced, bi-partisan deal that would combine $450 million in tax increases along with $750 million in budget cuts to meet the Super Committee’s ten year goal. In rejecting this proposal, President Obama and the Democrats showed that they don’t truly want a balanced bipartisan solution to the deficit problem.

This is what the proposal looks like when you take off the funny glasses.

Toomey’s proposal would have raised revenue slightly—no more than $45 billion a year. But most of that increase would have come from the middle class not the rich.

Toomey proposed to reduce the marginal tax rates for everyone by 20%. However, the absolute reduction in the tax rate would vary from top to bottom. People making between $50,000 and $75,000 would see their after tax income increase 1.7%; those making $200,000 to $500,000 would see their after tax income increase 3.5%; and people making over $1 million would see their after tax income increase by almost 4.4%.

To increase revenues and make up for the decline in tax rates, Toomey’s borrowed a proposal from Martin Feldstein to caps tax expenditures—loopholes—to 2% of adjusted gross income.  That sounds fair. But look at the details and you see that taxes go up far more on lower- and middle- than upper-income people. Feldstein’s proposal limits tax expenditures used by lower- and middle-income taxpayers such as the Child Tax Credit and the exclusion of employer paid health insurance. But It does not limit those used primarily by the rich, such as the partial exclusion of capital gains and dividends from taxation. And because the cap is set as a percentage of income, those with higher income will benefit more from loopholes than those with moderate or low incomes.

Toomey’s tax rate proposal would also lock in the already regressive Bush tax cuts, shifting the tax burden even more on the poor and middle class. And it gives up the $3.3 billion of deficit reduction we would get by letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

Of course Toomey claims that reducing marginal tax rates would spur economic growth. But while right wingers repeat this claim ad nauseum, it turns out to be true only in the fantasy world in which they live. At some point higher marginal rates do reduce economic growth. But recent studies by Nobel economics laureate Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez and by Mike Kimel suggest that raising the marginal tax rate on the highest earners to between 65 and 75% would not harm economic growth at all.

This sounds counter-intuitive only because thirty years of a Republican drum beat has made it seem so. But the greatest period of economic growth in American history took place between 1945 and 1973 when marginal tax rates were initially as high as 91%, only coming down to 70% in 1965. Why? Because people with incomes in the stratosphere can’t possibly spend all they earn. At that level, a higher income only boost one’s self-esteem not one’s consumption and pre-tax income serves just as well as post-tax income for that purpose. Moreover, the best way for small businessmen to reduce a high income tax burden—and increase the value of their holdings over the long term—is by reinvesting in their businesses. So increasing their income taxes is an incentive to, not a burden on, job creation.

The spending cuts proposed by Republicans also fall on working people. Medicare recipients would face higher premiums and co-pays. And states would see federal support for Medicaid slashed, with the result that many people, including many seniors in nursing homes, would face severe benefit cuts.

So the Democrats and President Obama were absolutely right to say reject Toomey’s plan, which was neither balanced nor a bi-partisan. It was one more effort on the part of Republicans to help the rich grow richer while placing the burden of deficit reduction on working people and the middle class. Pat Toomey and his friends in the media can spin all they want. But as a great Republican once said, you can’t fool all the people all the time. Sooner rather than later, the Republicans will discover that the majority of voters will take off the funny glasses and see the world, and Toomey’s ugly proposals, as they really are.

PDF    Send article as PDF   
 

The bizarre moments in our political and cultural lives are sometimes the best windows into currents of thought underlying our explicit beliefs, currents that are so deep that we often don’t even recognize them as our own.

Which is worse: sexual harassment or a long term affair?

Consider, for example, the reactions of conservatives to Herman Cain’s alleged sexual misconduct. Two weeks ago, when Herman Cain was charged with sexually harassing multiple women, conservative ran to his defense. They claimed that sexual harassment is an overblown phenomenon and attacked the credibility of the women who accused him. And yet last week, when a woman came forth to say that she had a long term affair with Cain, most conservatives criticized him and said that his candidacy was or should be over.

One would think that sexual harassment—that is using material inducements and physical pressure to induce a woman to have sex with you—was a far more damaging charge than a consensual affair. Yet the conservative reaction was exactly the opposite.

It is possible that the stronger reaction to the second charge against Cain is just the result of the accumulation of evidence that Cain has some issues with women. But the striking difference in tone in how conservatives responded to the two different charges against Cain suggests something deeper is at work.

We can’t get at the deeper ideas that account for this bizarre phenomenon unless we recognize that the differences between liberals and conservatives on sexual matters—women’s rights, abortion, homosexuality, and sexual harassment—are not just the product of superficial disagreements that rest mainly on which passages in the Hebrew Bible we take seriously and which we think we can ignore. (As liberals often point out, the conservatives who quote Leviticus 18:22 condemning male homosexuality don’t feel bound by the prohibition on eating shellfish in Leviticus 11:10.) Rather these differences are rooted in very different conceptions of the nature of sexuality.

The conservative view of sexuality

We can summarize the complicated set of ideas that underlie conservative views in this way: Sexual desire, especially in men, is a dangerous force. It is a potentially overpowering, anarchic desire. It is fundamentally promiscuous and does not naturally lead men to form romantic relationships or families. Indeed, in men sexual desire aims not just at physical pleasure but at the conquest and domination of women. And that desire must be constrained if we are to have stable families in which children can be raised well. For most of our history, women have provided that constraint. By denying men access to their bodies outside of marriage, women have tamed male sexuality and directed in socially beneficial ways. For some men, even that restraint is not sufficient. And so we allow other outlets for the sexual desires of men, pornography and prostitution, that are lesser threat to families and minimally disruptive to the social fabric..

If this is how you think about sexuality, then the conservative agenda makes perfect sense. Anything that encourages or allows men to have sex outside of marriage undermines the only institution that can tame men and preserve the family. This includes the acceptance of promiscuity and men and women living together as well as contraception and abortion, which make these practices acceptable by reducing their risks to women. Homosexuality is also dangerous because it provides a non-marital outlet for male homosexuality. (Not a few conservatives have pointed out with trepidation out that sex with men likely to be more pleasurable to men than sex with women because male sexual partners share the same anarchic desires and know the bodies of men better than a woman do.) While prostitution and pornography must be tolerated as outlets for some men, they have to be kept disreputable and hidden away so as not to inflame the desires of other men.

How conservatives understand sexual harassment

Now if this is how you look at sexuality, it’s hard not to think that that the changes in our sexual lives over the last fifty years are a profound threat to our civilization. And the seemingly bizarre double reaction to the allegations against Herman Cain makes perfect sense. When conservatives say that sexual harassment doesn’t exist or that the extent of it is vastly overstated they are not really saying that powerful men don’t use threats or promises of preferment or physical force to secure sex with women. Rather, they are saying that this is how men are; that anyone who thinks that rules against this behavior will stop it is foolish; that women should know this and not put themselves in situations where men will be men; and that if they don’t, women deserve the blame. And when conservatives try to undermine the credibility of women who charge men with sexual harassment the point is not really to call into question the story they tell. Rather it is to remind us that women fall into two categories, those one marries and those one uses for sex and that the women making these charges fall into the second category. Cain’s new effort to redeem himself from the charges against him, a new website called Women for Herman Cain. It has become the political equivalent of mud wrestling, a place for the “good women” among his supporters to trash the “bad women” attacking him.

That Cain’s wife dismissed the harassment charges against him by saying his actions were out of character is, thus meaningless. Men like Cain always treat their wives with respect. That’s one reason they seek to dominate other women sexually.

It’s not hard, then, to understand why conservatives were so quick to dismiss the sexual harassment charges against Cain. It’s a little more difficult to understand why they were so quick to call him to account for his long term affair with Ginger White. Partly that’s because it is harder to simply write off a long consensual affair as a man being a man. The effort to discredit White, though, looks like an attempt to paint her as one more tramp like the others. But the fundamental reason for treating the White affair differently is that, to the conservative mind, a long term affair is a far more serious threat to marriage than a series of flings. While the statute of limitations on his sins may have passed, as Newt Gingrich’s star rises, we will see conservatives raise questions about his practice of trading his wives in for younger models.

The progressive task

It’s not easy to find a contemporary conservative writer who has spelled this line of thought about sexuality as I have. Indeed, I suspect that many conservative writers could not do so. But these deeper ideas, originating two millennia ago mainly mainly among the Father of the Church, underlie not just the conservative reaction to Cain’s troubles but so many of our contemporary debates. However strange they sound to the contemporary liberal ear, it’s worth making these ideas explicit and calling them into account, and not just to combat conservative views about sexual issues.

The bigger issue is this: conservatives are, of course, not entirely wrong about the sexual desires of men and how men behave. Men rape, assault, harass, and dismiss women every day. In doing so they are acting out a dominator mode of sexuality that is even more deeply rooted in our civilization than the conservative critique of it. The Christian writers who devised the conservative ideas presented above were largely reacting to Greek and Roman ideas that justified dominator sexuality.

So our task is not just to understand the conservative view of male sexuality but, first, to say  that is a product not of our nature but of our cultural and institutional inheritance and second, to continue the task of freeing ourselves of that inheritance by acting and teaching our children differently. That’s the path to bringing us all to a liberated, egalitarian view of sexuality in which we are free to follow our own path, and in which the sexuality of both men and women be part of the desire to love, not dominate, our partners.

PDF Download    Send article as PDF   
 

In the last few months, the Occupy Movement has had a dramatic impact on politics in America. At a time when even Democratic politicians and progressive newspapers have shied away from raising critical issues of inequality in income, wealth, and power, the Occupy Wall Street has moved them to the forefront of our public debates.

Last week I joined a group from Occupy Philadelphia in a meeting at Senator Casey office in Washington. The Senator’s staff talked about the importance of the movement to their efforts on behalf of working people. Monday evening in Mt. Airy, Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz also praised the movement and pointed out that it has given new national prominence to the needs of cities.

Now, after the city and its newspapers have been so supportive of Occupy Philadelphia, it is sad to see both Mayor Nutter and the Daily News turn against it. The arguments they have given for doing so are specious.

Yes, Occupy Philadelphia has been a burden.

It has cost $500,000 in police services to this point. But government has long subsidized free speech with police protection for rallies and marches. And this is a small charge for a movement that has done so much to focus on the needs of people in this city. Government has also supported free speech by offering newspapers and magazines below-cost mailing privileges. And, just as the Daily News was preparing an editorial criticizing Occupy Philadelphia, Mayor Nutter announced that “city and state economic development funds” would be used to help the Inquirer and Daily News move into its new building on Market Street.

Occupy Philadelphia brings with it the ills of the city. There are problems of public safety and cleanliness at Dilworth Plaza. But the problems are exaggerated by the Mayor and the media. And many of those problems have been with us for a long time, not only in Dilworth plaza but in too many neighborhoods in our city, where men and women suffer from dangerous and unkempt streets.

The problems in Dilworth Plaza have spurred a renewal project, which will also create much needed construction jobs. I have encouraged Occupy Philadelphia to work with the city to find an alternative location when that project is ready to begin. That is especially important because the dispute with the city about the Dilworth Plaza site is a distraction from the true work of the movement, which is leading a process of collective education and consciousness-raising about the growing inequality in income, wealth and power in America.

Understanding that this is the purpose of the Occupy Movement is the answer to the most common critique of it, that it lacks a program or demands. That criticism entirely misunderstands the political situation of America today and misses the point of the movement.

There is no shortage of good ideas for creating equity in our tax system, reducing unemployment, or providing working people with better education, retirement security or health care. But two barriers make it almost impossible to move legislation embodying those ideas through Congress.

The first barrier is that, for thirty years, our politics has been dominated by a right wing agenda that has one answer to all our ills: reduce taxes, especially for large corporations and the very rich.

The second is the enormous sums of money the corporate elite devote to electing right wing Republicans and bending moderate Democrats to their will.

The result has been governments that are starved of funding; growing inequality created in no small part by public policy; and political officials, even from Democratic districts, that are reluctant to challenge the corporate dominance of our political lives.

Before we can start talking about demands and public policy, we need to awaken people to the problems we face. And we also need, in the world of Lawrence Goodwyn, the great historian of populism, to “see ourselves acting politically together.”

Many of us have long known about the conflict between the corporate rich and everyone else. But now an idea held by individuals and small disconnected groups has become the common property of a growing movement. Before, we didn’t know how many of us there were, so we didn’t speak up loudly enough. Now, we can feel the strength of a growing movement, and our voices are louder and stronger. Because we know we’re not alone, we’re ready to stand together until we change this country.

That’s why it is so critical for us all to support Occupy Philadelphia, whether in Dilworth Plaza or some other location.

Marc Stier is a writer and political activist from West Mt. Airy.

 

Free PDF    Send article as PDF   
© 2012 Marc Stier at Large Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha