The Audacity of Hate

   A work colleague of mine likes to listen to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh's radio shows while he works. So as a liberal you could imagine that this peeves me. Most of the time I try to just ignore it, but one day instead of just trying to ignore it I thought to my self, why don't I listen and try to see their opinions?

   As I listen I don't actually hear any intelligent debate or policy discussions. I only hear attacks on Obama and the Democrats. Hate filled rants against half of our electorate. I remember on Glenn Beck's show one of the hosts insinuated that Obama was a cockroach. They called Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the chairwomen of the Democratic Party, clinically insane. They said that every single person that had voted for Obama were idiots and that Christianity in this nation was under attack while they made fun of Muslims and Hindus. Who by the way are also part of America.

   Now what I need to make clear is that not all Republicans are like this. There are tons who want to have an intelligent debate about where our country needs to go. As well there are some pretty looney Democrats out there too. I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, I'm what you would call a Liberal, Libertarian, Independent. A mouthful I know.

   I really believe that the polarization of our country lately is a cause of our extreme right-wing media. Because unfortunately the people who listen to this stuff become desensitized to hate. They believe that they are the victims of a system that is built to specifically outcast them. That everybody who supports an efficient Government is a Socialist trying to destroy this country. Based on that thinking at least half of America is openly trying to destroy it self and turn it into a Marxist state. If that was the case then why are we the greatest country that god has blessed this earth with?

   They say things like "Obama is playing class warfare" by letting the tax cuts expire to pre-Bush levels. And at the same time trying to get rid of food stamps which is a vital program for our country's poorest. Which is actually class warfare? The one that lets the tax rate go back to pre-Bush levels, where if I remember I think we had the dot com boom. Or the one that stops feeding poor people in need. You be the judge.

   I was taught that you should never hate anything. Hate is an emotion that pushes away logic. An emotion that causes one to behave irrationally and outcast those in need. It's "We the people". Not me versus you.

Taxes vs. Deficit: Why lack of one will create a lot of the other

   My basic view is that we should have an efficient Government that provides transportation, waste management, schooling, health care, police, libraries etc. A Government that doesn't spend 6 times more on defense than the rest of the world. That doesn't have military bases in over 150 countries. A Government that taxes it's people fairly for the services it provides.

   My view is not a very popular view among most, nowadays people tend to want as low taxes as possible. However if you were to ask those same people if they want the services that Government provides they would say yes. I see a huge contradiction here, for if an individual wanted to purchase an expensive service but continued to lessen their revenue they would have a huge deficit, as we have. But the Republican Party still refuses to raise taxes to the rate that they were under Clinton. The last time we had a balanced budget, it worked then and it would work now. They say that they won't take $1 in raised taxes for every $10 in spending cuts. They say we should only cut spending. But not defense, that's off the table. 

   The Democratic party is as at fault as well, they let it get like this. It was under Bush that the deficit got outrageous, the tax cuts and the Iraqi and Afghani wars, not to mention the Medicare Part D drug plan. Some Democrats voted for these bills. If they would have obstructed as the Republicans have in the Senate in the past 4 years who knows our deficit might be much less. 

   All in all I believe that we have a country that just wants to spend and not pay for it. They would rather have a deficit than to pay higher taxes. We as a country have a spending addiction and taxes are the only way to keep us from going bankrupt. I don't want high taxes, but I would rather them than to have a country with a 15 trillion dollar debt. So the only way to maintain the services the Government provides and balance the budget is to raise taxes. Sorry Grover Norquist, do the math it's just not feasible. 

Tea-Cuppied: The similarities and differences between our modern grassroots movements

   The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements are movements that I believe were born out of the 

same ideas, the distrust of the establishment and the want for change in our society. Even though they were born out of the same ideas, I believe that that is where their similarities end. Occupy Wall Street, whose views I tend to agree with, have failed to politically organize in the way the Tea Party has.

   The Occupy Wall Street movement was started on September, 17th 2011 in the financial district of New York City by a group of people that were mostly young, liberal and unemployed. According to their Declaration of the Occupation of New York City the reason for their protests were to "gather in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice". They believe that corporate and Government corruption has led to the oppression of the 99% and created a vast inequality in our political system. Opponents of Occupy Wall Street have called them hippies, pot smokers and lazy.

   As a general concept I agree with Occupy's beliefs. I believe that mega-corporations have taken advantage of our broken political system for their gain and to the 99%'s detriment. I believe that the reason for this is that corporations exist for one reason, to make money. Their constituents are their shareholders and not the people of the United States or the World. So taking that into account I believe that it is the responsibility of the Government to regulate the private sector and create rules and regulations to follow in the pursuit of profit, because the Government is elected by the people and represents their interests. So it's not the corporations that are the problem, it is the lack of Government oversight of the corporations that leads to our societal inequality. But true oversight however can only be achieved in an environment that doesn't contain a conflict of interest between the regulators and the regulated. I believe that Occupy Wall Street is on the right track as far as the reason for our societal issues and are doing a good thing in banding together to "express their feeling of mass injustice". However I also believe that they didn't hit the nail right on the head and they lack actionable solutions.

   The Tea Party which is named after the famous Boston Tea Party of 1773 is according to their website "a grassroots movement that calls awareness to any issue that challenges the security, sovereignty, or domestic tranquility of our beloved nation". As far as policy goes they call themselves "inherently conservative". They believe in a free market,  a strong military, lower taxes, reduced spending and less government. According to Wikipedia The Tea Party started in early 2009 and protested against Obama's stimulus bill among other things. They were notorious for holding racy signs of which some depicted President Obama as an indigenous African.

   I personally disagree with most of the Tea party beliefs, however that doesn't mean that they don't present some solutions for our problems. I do agree that we need to dramatically reduce our spending. The sector of Government they want to cut in domestic entitlements. I would agree that we need to reform entitlements to make them more economical, however the main area I would like to cut is defense spending. So as you can see I don't agree with much of what the Tea Party stands for. But I would say that they have turned into much more of a political organization than Occupy Wall Street has.

   After Occupy Wall Street's initial protests the movement spread throughout not just the country but the world. At this point the media is still keeping a close eye on the movement and its message is still spreading. But not without violence, the most notable case was in the Occupy Oakland where protesters and police clashed. Businesses were vandalized, tear gas and rubber bullets were used and it was generally a bad public relations day for the movement. It painted the picture of anarchy, a leaderless group that in the end only wanted the freedom to take. This is what the critics of Occupy have said. I would agree with part of it, they desperately needed a leader or council. Someone they could rally around in the decision making process. I believe that the lack of a leader is eventually what led to the media just not paying any more attention to them. Think about how the Tea Party always have spokespeople al over the air waves constantly spewing their message. That's what Occupy needed, a radical set of leaders that weren't afraid to ruffle any feathers. This would have generated attention, funding. They could be running candidates in this year's election. that's how you affect change, get people to actually represent your interests. Something the Tea Party did so well.

   After the Tea Party's initial protests that truly polarized our country they earned the endorsement of the right wing media. Glenn Beck famously held a Tea Party rally at the national mall in Washington D.C. Fox News famously supported the Tea party in nearly all of their programming, not to mention Rush Limbaugh and the right wing radio. This provided them with a huge advantage in the organization process, because the media was a resource that was used to fund their agenda. Big monetary supporters of the Tea Party in the 2010 election included the Koch Brothers and Dick Armey according to a 2010 NY Times article. They used this funding to put candidates in a series of congressional and senatorial elections, and they actually won a lot of them. The Tea Party Caucus in the House of Representatives has 61 members and in the Senate 4 according to Wikipedia. They are famous for not compromising at all on any issue with the Democrats which in my opinion has caused the whole policy discussion to move to the right in our country's detriment. I believe the debt ceiling debate shows what I'm talking about quite vividly. They have taken a movement and turned it into a de facto political party. Something that Occupy didn't do at all.

   So what does this all mean for our country in this upcoming election? Well, as far as the Tea party goes I believe that their influence won't be as strong as it was in the midterms. But they will still win some seats, and I believe that their influence will be with us for some time to come. When I think of the Occupy movement I think in what ifs. What if they organized, what if they had candidates in this upcoming election. Heck I might even vote for a change. But thinking in what ifs isn't productive,  we have to think about the future. The continual fight for equality, among all people. We the people.

Maxximilian Seijo

Madison the Liberal Republican

The following is an Excerpt from page 74 of The Federalist Papers No. 10. (Madison)

"A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations. of government."

He is essentially saying is that the principal task of legislation is the regulation of monetary interests, and that it should not just be necessary, but commonplace.

I find it intriguing that a founding father, that has traditionally been seen as conservative, would say something like this, for it contrasts so vividly with the conservative principals of our time. It is good to know that Madison was aware that unregulated interests could pose significant problems to the welfare of our country.

I believe, that what he is describing is directly correlated with the problems of our current Government. For "we the people" don't have lobbyists. We can't collectively "speak" as the more privileged can. I think if Madison heard the Supreme Court's ruling on the Citizens United case he would turn over in his grave.

Why have our leaders not listened to Madison? Why have we as a society gone away from our founding ideals? These are the questions that need to be asked. These are the questions that I believe Madison would ask.