by

Some checks are more important than others

90% of Americans support background checks. The NRA writes contribution checks. Guess who wins?

Yep. The watered-down background checks law couldn’t even get through Congress when just about everyone supported it. What does that tell you?

The small percentage of those against background checks are either (a) NRA lobbyists who want to sell as many guns as possible for the gun manufacturers who pay them or (b) gun nuts who are convinced that everybody having a gun is the only thing standing between us and totalitarianism. And yet, that’s who Congress listened to.

So it still remains easier in most of the United States to buy a gun than it is to get a driver’s license and drive a car.56256280484ea.image

Most of the GOP angrily hate any kind of background check or restrictive registrations because they violate basic Constitutional rights. I know this, because I heard them say it while they were passing laws requiring background checks and restrictive registrations in order to vote.

And even so, this law would have done practically nothing. It was weakened to the point of being meaningless, with exceptions for selling guns to family, neighbors, or friends.

“Hi, welcome to Billy-Bob’s Gun Emporium.”

“I’d like to buy twelve military-style assault rifles and some armor-piercing bullets. But, uh, I don’t want to do a background check.”

“Where do you live?”

“On the other side of town.”

“We’re neighbors! Do you have any money?”

“Yes, right here.”

“Ah, then you’re also a friend! No problem. Here we go…”

To think that we couldn’t even get this first step passed, with support unlike just about anything else in the entire country (try to get 90% of the public to agree on anything), just lets you know who really runs things here.

And it ain’t us.

Editorial cartoon of the day

by

More jumping

Yesterday I criticized Fox for jumping to conclusions. I was right; they had to back away and admit that they were completely wrong.

Today, CNN and NBC (and Fox again) also read too much into something and proclaimed that a suspect was in custody when in fact the only real news was that a video had been found that showed someone who might be the bomber. More jumping to conclusions, but at least this time it wasn’t a “He’s Muslim so he must be guilty” situation.

I feel like yelling “everyone remain calm and remember Richard Jewell!”

Editorial cartoon of the day

by

Jumping to conclusions

I went to law school in Boston, just a few blocks from the bombing. I traveled Boylston Street often — to get to the Copley Place subway stop or go to the great Boston Public Library for books or guest lectures. I lived in Boston for a total of twelve years and often think I never should have left.

So of course, like everyone, I looked for answers. Who would do this horrible thing? And why?boston

I speculated. It sure seemed more like a home-grown attack than a terrorist one. It happened on tax day, in the home of the original tea party. And as my friend, journalist Steve Vaughan (a/k/a “Virginia Pundit”) said, “I’m not sure the targets would have the same resonance with our ‘friends’ in the Middle East. Also, no martyrs. Whoever did this planted the bombs, walked away and set them off by remote. That sounds like Americans.”

That doesn’t mean Steve and I are right. Just wondering, and speculating.

However, many don’t seem to care about speculating. Fox News (through the New York Post) wildly reported that there was a Muslim suspect in custody. Even after the Police denied the story, they stood by it. By today, when it was made clear that the police had merely spoken to a Muslim kid who was a witness (along with hundreds of other witnesses) did Fox back away. Fortunately, all the other reliable media have learned not to repeat anything reported by anything owned by Rupert Murdock. No such restriction was held with the right-wing blog, who gladly proclaimed their “truth” of the matter. And some of my conservative friends reposted these accusations over and over on their Facebook pages, spreading the crap.

Now, I don’t know. Maybe it was some Islamic extremist. Or maybe it was a home-grown one. Or maybe just a crazy person acting on his own. We don’t know yet.

It’s one thing to speculate based on evidence and the methods by which the bombing happened, and quite another to make huge accusations based on fear.

So I advise everyone: Be cynical. Be skeptical. Demand evidence.

And never trust anything connected with Fox News.

And always check Snopes first!

Editorial cartoon of the day

by

Taxes! I got an uncle living in Taxes…

Prosecutor: Something must be done! War would mean a prohibitive increase in our taxes.

Chico: Hey, I got an uncle lives in Taxes.

Prosecutor: No, I’m talking about taxes – money, dollars!

Chico: That’s-a where he lives! Dollars, Taxes! (from Duck Soup)

It’s tax day and Americans all over are complaining even though we have the lowest taxes of any industrialized country. Of course, they could be even lower for many of us if we just had a good, progressive tax system.

We’re the richest country on earth but yet our government is quite poor and in debt. Partially this is due to George W. Bush, who (a) started a war, (b) created a prescription drug plan and (c) cut taxes on the very wealthy without making any provisions for paying for any of these things.

The obvious solution when one is in debt is to increase one’s income. And, in fact, raising taxes on the very wealthy is supported by a majority of Americans. The problem is that the very wealthy have a lot more power than the majority of Americans.

Back in the old days after WWII and before Reagan handed the country over to the wealthy, we did great things. We built highways, created the internet and went to the moon — and these investments helped our economy and made us even richer. Now our infrastructure is falling apart (literally, bridges are collapsing with traffic going over them) and our science program is dead.

If we could just go back to the tax levels set by that radical socialist Dwight Eisenhower, we would create jobs, pay down the debt, and improve our standard of living.

The ultra rich though have managed to convince people that if you tax them fairly, it will hurt us because they are the “job creators.” This ignores all facts completely — we’ve had historically low taxes on these people for many years and no jobs have magically appeared.

One thing some people don’t understand is how progressive tax works. When you hear that the top tax rate under Eisenhower was 94% you think, “Wow! Millionaires only got to keep 6% of their income?” I know that’s what I used to think, especially after hearing George Harrison complain in Taxman: “If 5% appears too small, be thankful I don’t take it all.”

But that’s not how it works. You pay a certain percentage up to a specific amount. For instance, our current tax rates look something like this:

10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,700, plus
15% on taxable income over $8,700 to $35,350, plus
25% on taxable income over $35,350 to $85,650, plus
28% on taxable income over $85,650 to $178,650, plus
33% on taxable income over $178,650 to $388,350, plus
35% on taxable income over $388,350, plus
40% on taxable income over $400,000

If you earn more than $400,000, it doesn’t mean the government gets 40% of your $400,000. It means they get 10% of your income under $8,700 and then 15% on your income between $8,700 and $35,350, and so on. The highest rate is only for whatever income you have over $400,000. That’s how we were able to have tax rates in the 90% range on the very very wealthy without bankrupting them (while at the same time providing for budget surpluses).

Do I wish my taxes were lower? Of course. For those of us not earning a six figure salary, tax time can really hurt. One way we could fix that is by going back to the system that we know works, where the absolute richest pay a higher percentage.

Editorial cartoon of the day

by

Wasting taxpayer money to fight sex you don’t like

Tea Party favorite Ken Cuccinelli is the Attorney General from my home state of Virginia. You know, the person who is the top attorney in the state. The guy to go to when you have a question about the Constitution. The expert on the law.

Oh, wait, did I say “tea party favorite”? Never mind. All bets are off once you say those words.

Kenny Boy has decided to spend taxpayer money fighting for an anti-sodomy law in Virginia, to prohibit all sex except vaginal intercourse. As anyone who is a lawyer knows, all such laws were struck down by the United States Supreme Court in the Lawrence v. Texas case ten years ago.

The Constitution has never stood in the way of these people before, though, especially when it comes to icky sex things such as oral sex, gay sex, abortions, or other personal choices having to do with one’s own body. These prudes want to make sure no one does anything that they personally don’t like. (As an aside, have you noticed how almost all of the loudest anti-sex protesters later turn out to be closeted themselves, doing the very things they rant about?)

Fortunately, the very conservative 4th district federal court ruled unanimously that the law was what it was. Surprise, Ken!

This guy is now running for Governor of a state that is becoming bluer by the day. Let’s hope he loses and Virginia remains for lovers.

Editorial cartoon of the day