LIBERADIO(!)

Today Harold Ford, Jr. [Ed. Curious to note the completely blank webpage without even any hidden text indicating a run for governor in 2010.] penned an op-ed for the Washington Times, brought to us by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon.

Here is the meat of Jr.’s proposal:

To address the challenges of the middle class, Democrats should advance an agenda that aims to do something loftier than just repeal the Bush tax cuts on millionaires. It should boost incentives for average Americans to increase savings and investments, and help them participate more fully in the upside of economic growth.

Toward that end, here are a few ideas that will help more people share in the rewards of the modern economy:

• Middle-class flat tax: This is simple and fair: no middle-class family with an income of under $150,000 should ever pay an effective tax rate of more than 10 percent. If what they owe after calculating their taxes is more than 10 percent of their income, they won’t have to pay a dime above 10 percent. If they owe less than 10 percent, they pay the lesser amount.
• Permanent capital-gains tax cuts: Long-term capital gains tax rates now are between 5 percent and 15 percent. The rates are progressive: People in or below the 15 percent personal income tax bracket (which applies to married couples making $60,000) get the lower capital-gains rate. We should lower the capital-gains tax even further for people making up to $100,000 a year, provided they hold the asset for up to five years. Thus your tax would be 4 percent if you hold the asset for three years, 3 percent if you hold it for five years. This sliding scale for taxing capital gains will encourage investment and increase savings for a majority of Americans.
• Cut corporate tax rates to 30 percent: America has one of the developed world’s highest corporate tax rates. Let’s change that by lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 to 30 percent — with an even lower rate for new knowledge-based industries in energy technology, biotechnology and other science-rich sectors. We should follow House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel’s lead and cut the corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 30 ½ percent,

All these proposals would be paid for by eliminating inefficient tax loopholes and wasteful corporate subsidies. We can also pay for it by modernizing the financing of Social Security and Medicare.

When Democrats, liberals, or progressives (a distinction between the latter two nicely made by Paul Krugman when we spoke to him) lead with taxes, they lead with a glass jaw. Note how Mr. Ford attempts to take the edge off by using the phrase “flat tax” in his piece, as if that’s going to fool either Mr. Norquist or Rush Limbaugh, who will always find a way to make any Democrat look like a habitual tax-raiser.

Personally, I think Democrats, liberals, and progressives should lead with the budget. For it is the budget that is the cause of taxation in the first place. I realize that voters (and non-voters, actually) feel the pull of the metaphorical lever in their wallets come Apr. 15th, and I would certainly be in Mr. Ford’s middle class that would benefit from his flat tax, but I also would love to see more of our politicians speak with as much passion about their budgetary ideas as they do about their ideas for collecting revenue.

John Edwards is, in my opinion, doing the best job of this in the Democratic primary. He has issued more and more in-depth policy proposals than any of the competition (on either side). And he is not shy about the fact that his ideas cost money. But at least we have a clear understanding of what he’s asking us to pay for.

Mr. Ford, on the other hand, vaguely references a covenant with Social Security millionaires as a potential cost-savings device. I think this is the germ of a sound idea, but we really need health care reform more than anything. And it’s couched in an essay all about taxation, and one that caters to pro-business anti-taxers, at that.

Frankly, I think Democrats would do themselves a favor to become more budget-oriented in their emotional appeal. It would force some tough decisions and healthy discussions. Much healthier than how often they should mention God. We need more transparency with regard to the process of earmarks. We need better explanation of each aspect of the budget and how it is created. We need to know more about why we’re being taxed in the first place.

Here’s the bottom line: very, very few people will ever consider themselves fairly or appropriately taxed, especially comparatively (e.g., “Why does Rupert Murdoch get all those cushy tax breaks for his corporation and lack of clearly stated income?!” and “Why should I pay more simply because I have more? After all, I inherited—er, worked—hard to live the American dream!”). Thus, anyone in the spectrum of Democrat, liberal, or progressive will be beating their heads against a wall of Grover Norquists and Ben Cunninghams.

Taxes are an emotional issue, and it’s much easier to speak out against the raw idea of a tax increase than it is to get the blood boiling over quality public school infrastructure (getting to teachers and curricula is a secondary, more complex issue) or access to health care or appropriate social welfare. Sure, there are ideologues who, like Norquist, want to drown the federal government in a bathtub (unless it’s pre-emptively invading other countries or providing monopolies to professional sports teams), but voters are much less rigidly ideological than such pundits.

In fact, I think it’d be healthy for the nation as a whole if we had a broader conversation about the Ownership Society and the rugged individualist versus the all-in-it-together social safety net. But don’t ask me how we’re gonna pay for it…

Summary: Our guest is Dale Gray, executive director of MANNA Nashville, a coalition of people from all parts of the Nashville community who for 25 years have been committed to attacking the root causes of hunger.

Listen to: Manna Nashville, an Interview with Dale Gray (36MB, :21:00)

The juxtaposition on last night’s CNN/YouTube debate of the “On the Death Penalty, what would Jesus do?” question and the “Do you believe every word of The Holy Bible” question was poetic. Governor Mike Huckabee’s answers, not so much.

That Huckabee pretended to not recognize his hypocrisy was almost too much to bear (but it did feel good to yell at the TV).

What would Jesus do about the death penalty? Well, according to the book that Huck believes “was a revelation to us from God Himself” and you “either believe it or you don’t believe it,” he wouldn’t stand for it. He’d abolish it. He’d just say no and condemn any that allowed it. But then again, he did have first hand experience so his empathy comes as no surprise.

And for someone like Huck, a minister with a theology degree, who says he believes every word of the bible it really was quite shocking that he didn’t include thou shalt not kill in his answer to the Holy Bible question along with The Golden Rule and love your neighbor as yourself as one of the messages that “nobody can confuse or not really left up to interpretation.” OK, not shocking. More like shockingly calculated.

Mike Huckabee’s a funny guy and he left the audience laughing when pressed to answer the WWJD about the death penalty question: “Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office, Anderson, that’s what Jesus would do.” Wise words, Huck, so heed them. Either stop parading around your particular brand of Christian hypocrisy and run for office or stick to being a minister.

Yesterday’s Republican CNN/YouTube debate was a hoot. That wacky Mike Huckabee really cracks me up. But the laughs came to an abrupt halt when Duncan Hunter answered a question about why he thinks that “American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians:”

“…I believe in what Colin Powell said when he said that having openly homosexual people serving in the ranks would be bad for unit cohesion. The reason for that, even though people point to the Israelis and point to the Brits and point to other people as having homosexuals serve, is that most Americans, most kids who leave that breakfast table and go out and serve in the military and make that corporate decision with their family, most of them are conservatives. They have conservative values, and they have Judeo-Christian values. To force those people to work in a small tight unit with somebody who is openly homosexual goes against what they believe to be their principles, and it is their principles, is I think a disservice to them. I agree with Colin Powell that it would be bad for unit cohesion.”

Homosezwhat?!?! In just a few sentences Hunter dissed half the military, half of conservatives, and half of Americans who self-identify as Jewish or Christian. Most who join the military are conservative? Most conservatives have the same principles? Most Americans with Judeo-Christian values are conservatives?

Wake up, Duncan Hunter. You know that at least half the country does not self-identify as conservative but you’re still trying to tell us is that no one from that half is in the military or attends a church or synagogue weekly?

The U.S. Military must remain non-partisan and non-political, but based on the simple common sense that Hunter’s pea brain lacks, the percentages of conservatives versus liberals in the military can probably be broken down in the same way as everything else in this country. Military Service may favor one party over another slightly but not by the large majority that would allow him to use the descriptive “most.” In fact, it’s probably a lot like the breakdown of those in the Federal Government who served and “most” in either direction most definitely doesn’t apply.

Military Service in the US House of Representatives by Party:

• Republicans with military service: 13%
• Democrats with military service: 10%

Military Service in the United States Senate by Party:

• Republicans with military service: 16%
• Democrats with military service: 13%

PS: The myth of a conservative America has been debunked, by the way.

Summary: After we get done talking about our Thanksgiving Holiday and climate change, we get a call from Dan Mathews, Senior Vice President for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (aka PETA). Dan is an extraordinary activist who takes the “f” out of fur and puts it in fun. He’s also the author of Committed: A Rabble-Rouser’s Memoir.

Listen to: Naked in Nashville, an interview with PETA’s Dan Mathews (33.72MB, 20 minutes)

I am not a lawyer, and I don’t even play one on the radio. But I’m interested in the ramifications of “an ordinance amending Chapter 12 of Article 11 of the Metropolitan Code to prohibit aggressive panhandling and certain other panhandling activities.”

It defines “panhandling” thusly:

“Panhandling” means any solicitation made in person requesting an immediate donation of money or other thing of value for oneself or another person or entity. Purchase of an item for an amount far exceeding its value, under circumstances in which a reasonable person would understand that the purchase is, in substance, a donation, shall be considered panhandling for the purpose of this section. Panhandling shall not include the act of passively standing or sitting, performing music, or singing with a sign or other indication that a donation is being sought but without any vocal request other than a response to an inquiry by another person.

It then declares that “it shall be unlawful to engage in the act of panhandling on any day after sunset or before sunrise.”

Now, again, I’m not a lawyer, but this definition seems surprisingly broad. For instance, I’ve run for office, and I’ve helped host fundraisers for others running for office. By my reading, the events at which I’ve solicited money would allow any attendee to press charges against me. Or against a man of the cloth at a sundown sermon asking for an offering.

Apparently, our version was closely modeled on one from Indianapolis [scroll down to Section 407-102]. The striking difference, of course, is their definition:

As used in this section,panhandling means any solicitation made in person upon any street, public place or park in the city, in which a person requests an immediate donation of money or other gratuity from another person, and includes but is not limited to seeking donations:

1. By vocal appeal or for music, singing, or other street performance; and
2. Where the person being solicited receives an item of little or no monetary value in exchange for a donation, under circumstances where a reasonable person would understand that the transaction is in substance a donation.

One of the reasons the Indianapolis version is frequently used as a model is because it has already withstood a challenge to its constitutionality. If this was used as leverage by sponsor Walter Hunt, shouldn’t we have hewn a little more closely to the model definition? At least the original is a little more restrained in its definition, including locations. These are relegated to the declarations of unlawfulness in our version, and they don’t seem to be applied jointly with the time constraints. [See subsections B and C.]

I’d be interested to see whether this winds up being a story. Any lawyers in the crowd? If so, be careful not to solicit a fee after sundown if you provide an opinion…

Chris Wage has already offered his own lay person’s opinion of the ordinance.

UPDATE: According to Matt Leber of the Nashville Homeless Power Project, the bill is likely to be deferred till next year.

Paging Ginny Welsch, indeed. Goldni asks Congressman Cooper (D-TN, the Fightin’ 5th!) the question about his Iraq war funding vote that I’ve been stewing about all morning:

Really, Congressman Cooper? For all your talk about “fiscal responsibility,” you really want to pour more money into Iraq without ANY conditions attached? Doesn’t fiscal responsibility require SOME accountability?

I get it (but don’t like it) when Freddie tells me that some of Tennessee’s elected Democratic officials need to represent all of their districts and that some districts are not like Davidson County. But Congressman Cooper does represent the voters in Davidson County and yesterday he did not represent the wishes of his constituents.

If you’d like to remind him of that, he can be reached at 202-225-4311.

I’d also like to add that Congressman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN, the Fightin’ what-eva) needs to take a serious civics lesson if she really believes there’s no value in introducing legislation that you know is going to land on the Presidential chopping block. She said, “The Democrat leadership seems intent to write legislation they know is going to fail.”

Yeah, it’s called the democratic process. And please stop making up your own words. It’s Democratic leadership.

Summary: Big Hollywood Conglomerates are messing with our daily dose of The Colbert Report and we’re not happy about it. Oh, and we think the writers should be fairly compensated for their work, too. Plus, it seems as if Americans’ entertainment tastes as polarized as our political views, America’s national debt just breached $9 trillion for the first time ever, and the Weekly Standard’s William Kristol’s continues his descent into irrelevancy.

Listen to: We’ve Got Your Back, Jim (40.1MB, :25:01)

Summary: On Monday we also interviewed local U.S. Green Building Council spokesperson Jamie Qualk and Tennessee Environmental Council executive director John McFadden, who have also helped organize this weekend’s Summit for a Sustainable Tennessee, being held at Lipscomb University. Since the interview Friend of Liberadio(!) Kami has informed us that the organizers have agreed to let anyone interested in for FREE on SATURDAY which is a half day. The event is for non-profits, governmental agencies, businesses, special interest groups, and concerned citizens to hash out the environmental vision for Tennessee. Lunch included.

Listen to: Objection to a Depleted Environment Sustained (32.13MB, :20:03)

Summary: Our guest is David Earnhardt, an Emmy award winning producer and director and partner with the prestigious Nashville production company, Earnhardt Pirkle. His latest labor of love and the topic of our discussion is his documentary Uncounted: The New Math of American Elections, which shows how the election fraud that changed the outcome of the 2004 election led to even greater fraud in 2006 – and now looms as an unbridled threat to the outcome of the 2008 election. And you said we were crazy. Harumph.

Both The Daily Kos and Jim Ridley of The Nashville Scene have a wrap up of the extraordinarily successful premiere. A sold out and motivated crowd! Go, David!

Listen to: Interview with Filmmake David Earnhardt (59.72MB, :37:16)