If you’re a liberal who finds it hard to understand what the far-right folks are saying these days, try to imagine how confused they must feel.
Just when they had it all figured out, when they knew that dirty
Muslim in the White House was going to be all touchy-feely on terrorism
and kept a Qur’an hidden under his pillow and read from it every night
to Michelle and the kids, it turns out Joe Ricketts, the billionaire
owner of the Chicago Cubs, has been planning to spend $10 million of his
own money to resurrect Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. as part of a
scare-the-crap-out-of-dumb-people campaign effort. That’s right,
Rickett’s plans to show that President Obama has been attending an evil
Christian church. Yeah, he’s a…
Wait a minute... It only gets worse for our friends on the right-wing fringe.
Evangelicals are having a devil of a time swallowing the notion that a
Mormon is running for president as their very own candidate and also
claiming to be an honest-to-gosh, red-blooded Christian. Meanwhile, Rick
Santorum is moping around his house in bedroom slippers, complaining
that liberals ruined the Roman Catholic Church, one of the most
conservative institutions in the entire world, and led it down a path to
rampant priestly, predatory, sexual abuse. I mean: what won’t those
liberals stoop to?
SO, IT’S TIME AGAIN to do our best to decipher what conservatives are
really saying in the second installment of what will undoubtedly be my
life’s work, a multi-volume work, tentatively titled
The Far-Right Lexicon of Imaginary Terms and Far-Out Definitions.
Several recent additions have a sort of theological theme:
Creationism: on the first day God created the
heavens and the earth, on the second day the Founding Fathers, on the
third day Fox News, on the fourth automatic weapons and the right to
bear arms. On the fifth day He created gay people so that all His other
creations would have someone they might fear and loathe. On the sixth
day he created real Americans (see below) and traditional marriage and then He rested.
Evolution: when Converse black basketball shoes were replaced by Air Jordans.
Garden of Eden: where Adam and Eve lived, after God
finished His labors, and Nature was pure and clean and the first woman
exclaimed, “Drill, baby, drill.”
Defense of Marriage Act: where God defined marriage
as between one man and one woman, which was kind of confusing, since
Adam and Eve had only sons. Not to be confused with Deuteronomy 22:15,
where God gives advice on how a man with two wives should handle matters
of children by two different women. Oh, and ignore Judges 8:30, where
Gideon has seventy-one sons, many wives, and enjoys the favors of a
concubine for good measure. Gideon was just some trumpet player and
probably a closet liberal.
Sermon on the Mount: when Jesus blasted food stamps
as a “government giveaway” and said Representative Paul Ryan was his
homeboy, because Ryan had a deficit reduction plan that both protected
downtrodden millionaires and billionaires and denied health care
coverage to free-loading cripples and lepers. Christ went on to explain
that tax increases discourage small business growth and gave a shout out
to the founder of the fast food chain “Loaves and Fishes.“
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God: Biblical admonition against closing tax loopholes for camel herders and Big Oil companies.
IT’S NOT JUST RELIGIOUS TERMS that seem to confuse conservatives,
either. We need to dissect economic and political terms, too. This was
made perfectly clear a few days ago, when Richard Mourdock, a Tea Party
standard-bearer, who took out Dick Lugar in the Indiana Republican U. S.
Senate primary, spoke with Fox News. Murdock was asked his about his
idea of bipartisanship. Mourdock replied, like a fair-and-balanced Tea
Party stalwart on hallucinogenic drugs: “I have the mind-set that says bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view.”
So now we have:
Bipartisanship: when labor unions are dead,
completely, and Big Coal, for example, is no longer pestered with
government regulations, such as rules to protect safe drinking water,
which is in no way mentioned anywhere in the 2nd Amendment, and which
commies and liberals want to fluoridate in any case. Safety rules will
be repealed, so that workers killed by a buildup of explosive gasses or
in cave-ins are dead, as well, and then coal barons will get credit for
creating jobs; as in, when workers are killed by gas or cave-ins, and
suddenly we need replacement workers (see: right to work law, below).
Dream Act: the dream that every multimillionaire
with really good hair, running for president, can have his own
illegal-immigrant gardener, while simultaneously assuring Fox News
viewers (also called real Americans; see below; also
see part one) that he intends to “secure America’s borders” if elected.
Securing the border will apparently keep out waves of gardeners armed
with pinking shears.
Stand your ground law: a well-regulated militia
being necessary to protect Sarah Palin from reality, the individual’s
right to carry a gun into a Victoria’s Secret store at the mall shall in
no way be infringed, since the Founding Fathers meant for everyone to
have the right to drive M1A1 battle tanks if they desired, and to gun
down home invaders, including Jehovah’s Witnesses who ring door bells on
Saturday mornings.
Right to work law: passed with the support of
campaign donations from multi-national corporations, who are really
people–as Mitt Romney tells us all, when he’s not talking about trees in
Michigan being just the right height–exactly as the Founding Fathers
intended. These laws protect regular workers and help create jobs, often
at the very lowest rate of pay. Sometimes called, jokingly when
billionaires gather to party: “right to work for less laws.” Such
legislation guarantees the right of non-union workers to earn $729 per
week on average vs. $938 for unionized workers (See also: union thugs; part one).
War on Christmas: when the average non-union worker
begins to get restless because his paycheck doesn’t allow him to buy as
many Christmas presents as he was hoping, Fox News fills his mind with
scary, end-times warnings that godless secular humanists want to deny
his children the right to say, “Merry Christmas” to their teachers and
deny him, the happy non-union worker, the right to put up festive
holiday decorations.
Tax increase: what conservatives absolutely,
positively protect the average worker from, because nothing says, “We
love the average worker,” like low-paying jobs with no health insurance.
This means the average worker, who is safe from being forced to join a
union, who makes $211 less per week on average, or $10,972 yearly, is
protected from paying $14 more in weekly payroll taxes and $500 in union
dues. In return the thankful worker votes in support of the political
interests of millionaires and billionaires, who are, really, almost like
personal friends, like drinking buddies, people who still say, Merry
Christmas, too, only way, way richer.
Socialism: the idea that raising taxes by 3% on top
wage earners, say, a hedge fund manager who earned a $1.2 million bonus
in 2012, will reduce the deficit, when in fact any attempt to raise
taxes will end with the crushing of the liberties of all god-fearing real Americans (see
below) and make it impossible for said hedge fund manager to donate
$36,000 to his favorite GOP candidate, who is for small government for
everyone, and so, when you think about it, the top 1% are really
altruistic heroes.
Deficit reduction: the idea that you cannot raise taxes on Albert Pujols or said hedge fund manager, or Joe Ricketts, either. (See: socialism,
above; also part one); but cutting three teacher’s jobs, because each
makes $36,000 per year, will reduce government spending and trim the
deficit, which is killing this nation, the greatest in the world, the
nation that has a tax code that allows the super-rich to pay lower taxes
than the average teacher (see union thug; part one)
and now those unemployed teachers can go to work at Wal-Mart and you can
save the economy and create even more jobs in the long run and thank
god the billionaires are looking out for what is best for all of us.
Real American: anyone who watches Fox News
religiously (and we do mean, religiously) and believes Bill O’Reilly is
actually a Biblical prophet; also, anyone who believes that there is an
ongoing War on Christmas (see above), and thinks that liberals want to kill and eat the Easter Bunny.
Auto bailout: a clear attempt, by President Obama,
to introduce socialism, or communism, or maybe botulism to America; not
to be confused with purest capitalism, which is always perfect and good
and what God intended, and what Jesus was really trying to tell us, and
what Joe Ricketts is trying to protect when he pours that $10 million
into a slimy advertising campaign, while simultaneously asking city and
state government to fork out tens of millions to upgrade his very own
Wrigley Field stadium.
As far as I can tell, that’s what conservatives are saying these days; and I’m happy if I can be of any help.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
A great submission!
Thanks to Bev Isenson for these:
I had to laugh when I saw the Seattle Times story about Muslims joining in to overthrow the marriage-regardless-of-gender law. (We get the Times; the Snooze Tribune makes this area look like the Juarez of the north - crime, crime, crime.) Our president can't be a true Muslim, after all, since his position on gays in the military and gay marriage is definitely not the Muslim one!
Your last post included the piece asserting that all politicians lie. I take exception to that Senator Bernie Sanders doesn't lie. Jim McDermott doesn't lie. Rep. George Miller of California doesn't lie. I don't think Rep. John Conyers lies.
Former Rep. Alan Grayson told the truth; alas, his replacement is Alan West, who is still hallucinating about Communists.
Thought you'd be interested in the piece, below, by Seattle investor Nick Hanauer. Hanuaer is a very rich liberal Democrat. I'm guessing he is a big donor to Democratic campaigns, too, although I haven't checked the PDC nor the FEC records. He is, however, a believer in public charter schools, and will be a force to be reckoned with if the charter school issue makes it on to the November ballot.
Hanuaer's website links to his appearances on Charlie Rose last month, and Ed Schulz more recently.
http://nick-hanauer.com/?page_id=88
He co-wrote a book with Eric Liu, who is giving one of the talks at the State Democratic Convention Saturday.
Hanauer wrote an article for Bloomberg News last winter, which ran on the Bloomberg News website. I've included two recent comments from readers. There are plenty of the predictable stupid and blind commentators, too.
It is a tenet of American economic beliefs, and an article of faith for Republicans that is seldom contested by Democrats: If taxes are raised on the rich, job creation will stop.
Trouble is, sometimes the things that we know to be true are dead wrong. For the larger part of human history, for example, people were sure that the sun circles the Earth and that we are at the center of the universe. It doesn’t, and we aren’t. The conventional wisdom that the rich and businesses are our nation’s “job creators” is every bit as false.
I’m a very rich person. As an entrepreneur and venture capitalist, I’ve started or helped get off the ground dozens of companies in industries including manufacturing, retail, medical services, the Internet and software. I founded the Internet media company aQuantive Inc., which was acquired by Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) in 2007 for $6.4 billion. I was also the first non-family investor in Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN)
Even so, I’ve never been a “job creator.” I can start a business based on a great idea, and initially hire dozens or hundreds of people. But if no one can afford to buy what I have to sell, my business will soon fail and all those jobs will evaporate.
That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be.
It is unquestionably true that without entrepreneurs and investors, you can’t have a dynamic and growing capitalist economy. But it’s equally true that without consumers, you can’t have entrepreneurs and investors. And the more we have happy customers with lots of disposable income, the better our businesses will do.
That’s why our current policies are so upside down. When the American middle class defends a tax system in which the lion’s share of benefits accrues to the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer.
And that’s what has been happening in the U.S. for the last 30 years.
Since 1980, the share of the nation’s income for fat cats like me in the top 0.1 percent has increased a shocking 400 percent, while the share for the bottom 50 percent of Americans has declined 33 percent. At the same time, effective tax rates on the superwealthy fell to 16.6 percent in 2007, from 42 percent at the peak of U.S. productivity in the early 1960s, and about 30 percent during the expansion of the 1990s. In my case, that means that this year, I paid an 11 percent rate on an eight-figure income.
One reason this policy is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough superrich Americans to power a great economy. The annual earnings of people like me are hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater than those of the average American, but we don’t buy hundreds or thousands of times more stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. Like everyone else, I go out to eat with friends and family only occasionally.
It’s true that we do spend a lot more than the average family. Yet the one truly expensive line item in our budget is our airplane (which, by the way, was manufactured in France by Dassault Aviation SA (AM)), and those annual costs are mostly for fuel (from the Middle East). It’s just crazy to believe that any of this is more beneficial to our economy than hiring more teachers or police officers or investing in our infrastructure.
If the average American family still got the same share of income they earned in 1980, they would have an astounding $13,000 more in their pockets a year. It’s worth pausing to consider what our economy would be like today if middle-class consumers had that additional income to spend.
It is mathematically impossible to invest enough in our economy and our country to sustain the middle class (our customers) without taxing the top 1 percent at reasonable levels again. Shifting the burden from the 99 percent to the 1 percent is the surest and best way to get our consumer-based economy rolling again.
Significant tax increases on the about $1.5 trillion in collective income of those of us in the top 1 percent could create hundreds of billions of dollars to invest in our economy, rather than letting it pile up in a few bank accounts like a huge clot in our nation’s economic circulatory system.
Consider, for example, that a puny 3 percent surtax on incomes above $1 million would be enough to maintain and expand the current payroll tax cut beyond December, preventing a $1,000 increase on the average worker’s taxes at the worst possible time for the economy. With a few more pennies on the dollar, we could invest in rebuilding schools and infrastructure. And even if we imposed a millionaires’ surtax and rolled back the Bush- era tax cuts for those at the top, the taxes on the richest Americans would still be historically low, and their incomes would still be astronomically high.
We’ve had it backward for the last 30 years. Rich businesspeople like me don’t create jobs. Middle-class consumers do, and when they thrive, U.S. businesses grow and profit. That’s why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich.
So let’s give a break to the true job creators. Let’s tax the rich like we once did and use that money to spur growth by putting purchasing power back in the hands of the middle class. And let’s remember that capitalists without customers are out of business.
(Nick Hanauer is a founder of Second Avenue Partners, a venture capital company in Seattle specializing in early state startups and emerging technology. He has helped launch more than 20 companies, including aQuantive Inc. and Amazon.com, and is the co-author of two books, “The True Patriot” and “The Gardens of Democracy.” The opinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the writer of this article: Nick Hanauer at Nick@secondave.com.
To contact the editor responsible for this article: Max Berley at mberley@bloomberg.net.
I had to laugh when I saw the Seattle Times story about Muslims joining in to overthrow the marriage-regardless-of-gender law. (We get the Times; the Snooze Tribune makes this area look like the Juarez of the north - crime, crime, crime.) Our president can't be a true Muslim, after all, since his position on gays in the military and gay marriage is definitely not the Muslim one!
Your last post included the piece asserting that all politicians lie. I take exception to that Senator Bernie Sanders doesn't lie. Jim McDermott doesn't lie. Rep. George Miller of California doesn't lie. I don't think Rep. John Conyers lies.
Former Rep. Alan Grayson told the truth; alas, his replacement is Alan West, who is still hallucinating about Communists.
Thought you'd be interested in the piece, below, by Seattle investor Nick Hanauer. Hanuaer is a very rich liberal Democrat. I'm guessing he is a big donor to Democratic campaigns, too, although I haven't checked the PDC nor the FEC records. He is, however, a believer in public charter schools, and will be a force to be reckoned with if the charter school issue makes it on to the November ballot.
Hanuaer's website links to his appearances on Charlie Rose last month, and Ed Schulz more recently.
http://nick-hanauer.com/?page_id=88
He co-wrote a book with Eric Liu, who is giving one of the talks at the State Democratic Convention Saturday.
Hanauer wrote an article for Bloomberg News last winter, which ran on the Bloomberg News website. I've included two recent comments from readers. There are plenty of the predictable stupid and blind commentators, too.
Raise Taxes on Rich to Reward True Job Creators: Nick Hanauer
It is a tenet of American economic beliefs, and an article of faith for Republicans that is seldom contested by Democrats: If taxes are raised on the rich, job creation will stop.
Trouble is, sometimes the things that we know to be true are dead wrong. For the larger part of human history, for example, people were sure that the sun circles the Earth and that we are at the center of the universe. It doesn’t, and we aren’t. The conventional wisdom that the rich and businesses are our nation’s “job creators” is every bit as false.
I’m a very rich person. As an entrepreneur and venture capitalist, I’ve started or helped get off the ground dozens of companies in industries including manufacturing, retail, medical services, the Internet and software. I founded the Internet media company aQuantive Inc., which was acquired by Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) in 2007 for $6.4 billion. I was also the first non-family investor in Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN)
Even so, I’ve never been a “job creator.” I can start a business based on a great idea, and initially hire dozens or hundreds of people. But if no one can afford to buy what I have to sell, my business will soon fail and all those jobs will evaporate.
That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be.
Theory of Evolution
When businesspeople take credit for creating jobs, it is like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it’s the other way around.It is unquestionably true that without entrepreneurs and investors, you can’t have a dynamic and growing capitalist economy. But it’s equally true that without consumers, you can’t have entrepreneurs and investors. And the more we have happy customers with lots of disposable income, the better our businesses will do.
That’s why our current policies are so upside down. When the American middle class defends a tax system in which the lion’s share of benefits accrues to the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer.
And that’s what has been happening in the U.S. for the last 30 years.
Since 1980, the share of the nation’s income for fat cats like me in the top 0.1 percent has increased a shocking 400 percent, while the share for the bottom 50 percent of Americans has declined 33 percent. At the same time, effective tax rates on the superwealthy fell to 16.6 percent in 2007, from 42 percent at the peak of U.S. productivity in the early 1960s, and about 30 percent during the expansion of the 1990s. In my case, that means that this year, I paid an 11 percent rate on an eight-figure income.
One reason this policy is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough superrich Americans to power a great economy. The annual earnings of people like me are hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater than those of the average American, but we don’t buy hundreds or thousands of times more stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. Like everyone else, I go out to eat with friends and family only occasionally.
It’s true that we do spend a lot more than the average family. Yet the one truly expensive line item in our budget is our airplane (which, by the way, was manufactured in France by Dassault Aviation SA (AM)), and those annual costs are mostly for fuel (from the Middle East). It’s just crazy to believe that any of this is more beneficial to our economy than hiring more teachers or police officers or investing in our infrastructure.
More Shoppers Needed
I can’t buy enough of anything to make up for the fact that millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans can’t buy any new clothes or enjoy any meals out. Or to make up for the decreasing consumption of the tens of millions of middle-class families that are barely squeaking by, buried by spiraling costs and trapped by stagnant or declining wages.If the average American family still got the same share of income they earned in 1980, they would have an astounding $13,000 more in their pockets a year. It’s worth pausing to consider what our economy would be like today if middle-class consumers had that additional income to spend.
It is mathematically impossible to invest enough in our economy and our country to sustain the middle class (our customers) without taxing the top 1 percent at reasonable levels again. Shifting the burden from the 99 percent to the 1 percent is the surest and best way to get our consumer-based economy rolling again.
Significant tax increases on the about $1.5 trillion in collective income of those of us in the top 1 percent could create hundreds of billions of dollars to invest in our economy, rather than letting it pile up in a few bank accounts like a huge clot in our nation’s economic circulatory system.
Consider, for example, that a puny 3 percent surtax on incomes above $1 million would be enough to maintain and expand the current payroll tax cut beyond December, preventing a $1,000 increase on the average worker’s taxes at the worst possible time for the economy. With a few more pennies on the dollar, we could invest in rebuilding schools and infrastructure. And even if we imposed a millionaires’ surtax and rolled back the Bush- era tax cuts for those at the top, the taxes on the richest Americans would still be historically low, and their incomes would still be astronomically high.
We’ve had it backward for the last 30 years. Rich businesspeople like me don’t create jobs. Middle-class consumers do, and when they thrive, U.S. businesses grow and profit. That’s why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich.
So let’s give a break to the true job creators. Let’s tax the rich like we once did and use that money to spur growth by putting purchasing power back in the hands of the middle class. And let’s remember that capitalists without customers are out of business.
(Nick Hanauer is a founder of Second Avenue Partners, a venture capital company in Seattle specializing in early state startups and emerging technology. He has helped launch more than 20 companies, including aQuantive Inc. and Amazon.com, and is the co-author of two books, “The True Patriot” and “The Gardens of Democracy.” The opinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the writer of this article: Nick Hanauer at Nick@secondave.com.
To contact the editor responsible for this article: Max Berley at mberley@bloomberg.net.
--------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg moderates all comments.
Comments that are abusive or off-topic will not be posted to the site.
Excessively long comments may be moderated as well. Bloomberg cannot facilitate
requests to remove comments or explain individual moderation decisions.
Showing 1-40 of 533 comments on Raise Taxes on Rich to Reward True Job Creators: Nick Hanauer
-
Sidney18511 1 week ago
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Commentary on Neo-Cons
Recently sent to me by a friend
--
Posted By Blogger to Contextual Criticism at 5/26/2012 06:50:00 PM
Politicians, by nature, lie. It must be part of their
DNA. I dare say such a thing because the lies of politicians occur daily and
are duly noted, if lamely, by the so-called "Lamestream Media," most of whom are
employed by corporations which provide their personal politicians the means
whereby they can remain in office and continue to lie.
Georgi W. Bushki once commented to the effect it's
better to err on the side of life (see photo above). Today, after thousands of
American soldiers were killed via his orders, and multiple thousands of Iraqis
lost their lives, we know Mr. Bushki to be an enormous liar. We know his
concern was never to err on the side of life, but rather on the side of those
who would control the oil reserves of the Middle East . Any contrived
contriteness on the part of Mr. Bushki for those who died as a result of his
illegal and immoral militaristic adventures was just that - contrived and
phony: his tears were crocodile tears!
Currently, many of the neocons who clamored for invading
Iraq and Afghanistan , are once again beating the drums for war - this time with
Iran . Iran has lots of oil. Iran is engaged in becoming a nuclear power. For
peaceful purposes, of course. Or so the Iranian leaders
claim.
The neocons, who have no problem with India having the
bomb, or Pakistan and Israel having the bomb, or Russia (which appears to be
metamorphosing into the old Soviet Union), or China , or... So, what's the
problem? Why pick on Iran ? Is Iran more of a threat to the United States than
these other countries (not counting Israel , of course)?
In case you have any doubts about this resurrected
neocon vision for another war, just Google "Neocons want war with Iran
."
Neocons lie! All of them. Especially neocons holding
public office.
If they get their way, thousands, perhaps millions of
human beings will die. And you can bet your life neither the neocons nor
members of their family will be in the front lines. They'll happily send you,
your wife, your children and your grandchildren into the maelstrom, but they'll
hide out in the D.C. bars, swizzling martinis while their apocalyptic vision of
death by firestorm is carried out and your flesh and blood are seared beyond
recognition.
Georgi W. Bushki lied. The neocons lie. They lie, we
die.
How can this happen when the people oppose such action?
Consider this quote; you may have read it before but it has become particularly
pertinent in mid-2012:
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all,
it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a
simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice,
the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater
danger."
--Hermann Goring at the Nuremberg
Trials
--
Posted By Blogger to Contextual Criticism at 5/26/2012 06:50:00 PM
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Where is Donald Trump?
I am surprised that I haven't seen Donald "You're fired" Trump running around demanding that Willard Mitt Romney produce his birth certificate. (or, am I?)
Friday, May 25, 2012
Politics makes strange "bedfellows"
Opponents of gay-marriage law get unexpected aid: from Muslims
The Referendum 74 campaign to roll back the
state's same-sex marriage law says it has surpassed the minimum number
of signatures needed to qualify for the November ballot — with some of
that support coming from the state's Muslims, who traditionally have
remained silent on this issue.
Seattle Times staff reporter
With less than two weeks to go, organizers of the Referendum 74
campaign to roll back the state's same-sex-marriage law say they have
surpassed the minimum number of signatures needed to qualify for the
November ballot — with thousands more rolling in each day.
Some of that support is coming in from an unexpected place: Muslims, who as a community have traditionally remained silent on the question of gay marriage.
In recent weeks, several area mosques have requested thousands of Ref. 74 petitions to circulate among their members, and through November, Muslims plan to campaign alongside religious conservatives seeking to overturn the law.
On Wednesday, Preserve Marriage Washington, which is seeking to repeal the gay-marriage law with backing from the National Organization for Marriage, was reporting 127,211 signatures — 6,634 names more than the minimum required to qualify for the ballot. Organizers need to get — and the Secretary of State encourages — at least 150,000 signatures to ensure a sufficient number of them are from qualified registered voters.
"The number is changing daily," campaign manager Joseph Backholm said. "It's now only a question of whether we'll have time to count them all and stick the number on our website every day."
The same-sex-marriage law, which the Legislature passed in February, is set to take effect June 7 — unless Preserve Marriage can collect enough signatures by June 6, which would put the measure on hold until the November election.
Counties across the state are keeping an eye on the campaign because they have to be prepared for same-sex couples lining up outside their offices for marriage licenses if the petition drive fails.
Another group is circulating petitions on Initiative 1192, a similar but separate ballot measure that would reaffirm the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Its backers have until July 6 to collect at least 241,153 signatures, with up to 300,000 necessary to ensure coverage.
Washington United for Marriage, which is seeking to protect the state's same-sex-marriage law, did not mount a counter effort; they believe referendum backers will hit their numbers.
Rather, they are asking supporters to indicate their support online and are prepared to mount a campaign through November with gay couples telling their stories to the public.
Backholm said while most of the signatures collected to this point were gathered by volunteers — including collections in hundreds of churches, and mosques — the campaign hired some signature gatherers to "overcome an unacceptable risk" of not hitting their mark.
"In the end it won't matter, but we did buy a bundle of petitions," he said. "There's no real question the measure will qualify."
He believes the I-1192 campaign hurt the referendum because some people who support the overall goal of both measures were confused.
"It was inevitable," Backholm said. "People don't know the difference between them. In the end, it was not fatal."
One of the most surprising developments in the campaign is an alliance with Muslims in the state.
While Islamic leaders in this country have been reluctant to speak out against gay marriage, their religion considers it haram — forbidden.
Aziz Junejo, a frequent speaker on Islam, who hosts a weekly cable-television show and writes a Faith & Values column for The Seattle Times, said the majority of Muslims want to support Ref. 74.
"It's pretty clear from an Islamic perspective we have to support this issue because Islamic marriage is between a man and a woman," Junejo said.
Estimates of the number of Muslims in the state vary widely, but most put the number at more than 50,000.
Backholm said Muslim leaders took the initiative and reached out to the Ref. 74 campaign, not only requesting thousands of petitions to be circulated in their mosques, but offering to work in partnership through November.
"Christians and the Muslims have not always worked that well together," he said. "Here is a place of commonality. We are building bridges."
Lornet Turnbull: 206-464-2420 or lturnbull@seattletimes.com. On Twitter @turnbull
Some of that support is coming in from an unexpected place: Muslims, who as a community have traditionally remained silent on the question of gay marriage.
In recent weeks, several area mosques have requested thousands of Ref. 74 petitions to circulate among their members, and through November, Muslims plan to campaign alongside religious conservatives seeking to overturn the law.
On Wednesday, Preserve Marriage Washington, which is seeking to repeal the gay-marriage law with backing from the National Organization for Marriage, was reporting 127,211 signatures — 6,634 names more than the minimum required to qualify for the ballot. Organizers need to get — and the Secretary of State encourages — at least 150,000 signatures to ensure a sufficient number of them are from qualified registered voters.
"The number is changing daily," campaign manager Joseph Backholm said. "It's now only a question of whether we'll have time to count them all and stick the number on our website every day."
The same-sex-marriage law, which the Legislature passed in February, is set to take effect June 7 — unless Preserve Marriage can collect enough signatures by June 6, which would put the measure on hold until the November election.
Counties across the state are keeping an eye on the campaign because they have to be prepared for same-sex couples lining up outside their offices for marriage licenses if the petition drive fails.
Another group is circulating petitions on Initiative 1192, a similar but separate ballot measure that would reaffirm the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Its backers have until July 6 to collect at least 241,153 signatures, with up to 300,000 necessary to ensure coverage.
Washington United for Marriage, which is seeking to protect the state's same-sex-marriage law, did not mount a counter effort; they believe referendum backers will hit their numbers.
Rather, they are asking supporters to indicate their support online and are prepared to mount a campaign through November with gay couples telling their stories to the public.
Backholm said while most of the signatures collected to this point were gathered by volunteers — including collections in hundreds of churches, and mosques — the campaign hired some signature gatherers to "overcome an unacceptable risk" of not hitting their mark.
"In the end it won't matter, but we did buy a bundle of petitions," he said. "There's no real question the measure will qualify."
He believes the I-1192 campaign hurt the referendum because some people who support the overall goal of both measures were confused.
"It was inevitable," Backholm said. "People don't know the difference between them. In the end, it was not fatal."
One of the most surprising developments in the campaign is an alliance with Muslims in the state.
While Islamic leaders in this country have been reluctant to speak out against gay marriage, their religion considers it haram — forbidden.
Aziz Junejo, a frequent speaker on Islam, who hosts a weekly cable-television show and writes a Faith & Values column for The Seattle Times, said the majority of Muslims want to support Ref. 74.
"It's pretty clear from an Islamic perspective we have to support this issue because Islamic marriage is between a man and a woman," Junejo said.
Estimates of the number of Muslims in the state vary widely, but most put the number at more than 50,000.
Backholm said Muslim leaders took the initiative and reached out to the Ref. 74 campaign, not only requesting thousands of petitions to be circulated in their mosques, but offering to work in partnership through November.
"Christians and the Muslims have not always worked that well together," he said. "Here is a place of commonality. We are building bridges."
Lornet Turnbull: 206-464-2420 or lturnbull@seattletimes.com. On Twitter @turnbull
Newspaper qutoe of the day
A financial elite that prospers by turning workers upside
down for the change in their pockets should not be overseeing economic and tax
policies for the country.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
How Did Mitt Romney Get So Obscenely Rich? Robert Reich Explains
How do the firms like Bain Capital rip all of us off?
Robert Reich explains.
http://youtu.be/rodifJlis2c
Robert Reich explains.
http://youtu.be/rodifJlis2c
Friday, May 11, 2012
Romney v. Traditional Marriage
Mitt Romney announces he is for traditional marriage.
Let’s see if I understand this right.
A few generations ago, the tradition values in his family embraced…
One man
and
four or five women
But at least it was man on women, we think.
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)