“Well, I don't believe that climate change is just an issue that's convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it's one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation. That's why I've fought successfully in the Senate to increase our investment in renewable fuels. That's why I reached across the aisle to come up with a plan to raise our fuel standards… And I didn't just give a speech about it in front of some environmental audience in California. I went to Detroit, I stood in front of a group of automakers, and I told them that when I am president, there will be no more excuses — we will help them retool their factories, but they will have to make cars that use less oil.”
— Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, October 14, 2007
Foreign Oil: America's 20-million-barrel-a-day oil habit costs our economy $1.4 billion a day, and $500 billion in 2006 alone. Every single hour, we spend $41 million on foreign oil.
Climate Change: As a result of climate change, glaciers are melting faster; the polar ice caps are shrinking; trees are blooming earlier; more people are dying in heat waves; species are migrating, and eventually many will become extinct.
Barack Obama's Plan
Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
Cap and Trade: Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama's cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition.
Confront Deforestation and Promote Carbon Sequestration: Obama will develop domestic incentives that reward forest owners, farmers, and ranchers when they plant trees, restore grasslands, or undertake farming practices that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Invest in a Clean Energy Future
Invest $150 Billion over 10 Years in Clean Energy: Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. A principal focus of this fund will be devoted to ensuring that technologies that are developed in the U.S. are rapidly commercialized in the U.S. and deployed around the globe.
Double Energy Research and Development Funding: Obama will double science and research funding for clean energy projects including those that make use of our biomass, solar and wind resources.
Invest in a Skilled Clean Technologies Workforce: Obama will use proceeds from the cap-and-trade auction program to invest in job training and transition programs to help workers and industries adapt to clean technology development and production. Obama will also create an energy-focused Green Jobs Corps to connect disconnected and disadvantaged youth with job skills for a high-growth industry.
Convert our Manufacturing Centers into Clean Technology Leaders: Obama will establish a federal investment program to help manufacturing centers modernize and Americans learn the new skills they need to produce green products.
Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund: Obama will create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. technology development. Obama will invest $10 billion per year into this fund for five years. The fund will partner with existing investment funds and our National Laboratories to ensure that promising technologies move beyond the lab and are commercialized in the U.S
Require 25 Percent of Renewable Electricity by 2025: Obama will establish a 25 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2025.
Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology: Obama will significantly increase the resources devoted to the commercialization and deployment of low-carbon coal technologies. Obama will consider whatever policy tools are necessary, including standards that ban new traditional coal facilities, to ensure that we move quickly to commercialize and deploy low carbon coal technology.
Support Next Generation Biofuels
Deploy Cellulosic Ethanol: Obama will invest federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013.
Expand Locally-Owned Biofuel Refineries: Less than 10 percent of new ethanol production today is from farmer-owned refineries. New ethanol refineries help jumpstart rural economies. Obama will create a number of incentives for local communities to invest in their biofuels refineries.
Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Barack Obama will establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard to speed the introduction of low-carbon non-petroleum fuels. The standard requires fuels suppliers to reduce the carbon their fuel emits by ten percent by 2020.
Increase Renewable Fuel Standard: Obama will require 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels to be included in the fuel supply by 2022 and will increase that to at least 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol by 2030.
Set America on Path to Oil Independence
Obama's plan will reduce oil consumption by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels per day, by 2030. This will more than offset the equivalent of the oil we would import from OPEC nations in 2030.
Increase Fuel Economy Standards: Obama will double fuel economy standards within 18 years. His plan will provide retooling tax credits and loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers, so that they can build new fuel-efficient cars rather than overseas companies. Obama will also invest in advanced vehicle technology such as advanced lightweight materials and new engines.
Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030
Set National Building Efficiency Goals: Barack Obama will establish a goal of making all new buildings carbon neutral, or produce zero emissions, by 2030. He'll also establish a national goal of improving new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent over the next decade to help us meet the 2030 goal.
Establish a Grant Program for Early Adopters: Obama will create a competitive grant program to award those states and localities that take the first steps to implement new building codes that prioritize energy efficiency.
Invest in a Digital Smart Grid: Obama will pursue a major investment in our utility grid to enable a tremendous increase in renewable generation and accommodate modern energy requirements, such as reliability, smart metering, and distributed storage
Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change
Create New Forum of Largest Greenhouse Gas Emitters: Obama will create a Global Energy Forum — that includes all G-8 members plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa –the largest energy consuming nations from both the developed and developing world. The forum would focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues.
Re-Engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change: The UNFCCC process is the main international forum dedicated to addressing the climate problem and an Obama administration will work constructively within it.
Barack Obama's Record
Renewable Fuels: Obama has worked on numerous efforts in the Senate to increase access to and use of renewable fuels. Obama passed legislation with Senator Jim Talent (R-MO) to give gas stations a tax credit for installing E85 ethanol refueling pumps. The tax credit covers 30 percent of the costs of switching one or more traditional petroleum pumps to E85, which is an 85 percent ethanol/15 percent gasoline blend. Obama also sponsored an amendment that became law providing $40 million for commercialization of a combined flexible fuel vehicle/hybrid car within five years.
CAFE: Obama introduced a bold new plan that brought Republicans and Democrats, CAFE supporters and long-time opponents together in support of legislation that will gradually increase fuel economy standards and offer what the New York Times editorial page called "real as opposed to hypothetical results."
Human development is about much more than the rise or fall of national incomes. It is about creating an environment in which people can develop their full potential and lead productive, creative lives in accord with their needs and interests. People are the real wealth of nations. Development is thus about expanding the choices people have to lead lives that they value. And it is thus about much more than economic growth, which is only a means—if a very important one—of enlarging people’s choices.
What is Human Development?
The U.S. itself also has the largest gap and inequality between rich and poor compared to all the other industrialized nations. For example, the top 1% receives more money than the bottom 40% and the gap is the widest in 70 years. Furthermore, in the last 20 years while the share of income going to the top 1% has increased, it has decreased for the poorest 40%.
environmental social issues (usa proverty)
The World Bank and Poverty
The World Bank, being a major international institution, is worth looking at to see how its policies help or impact poverty and development around the world.
The World Bank produces an annual report, called the World Development Report. The Bank regards this as its flagship report. Most mainstream economists use this report in some way or form, and it is one of the few reports on development that the US mainstream media reports on (because it usually shows the US, and its policies that it prescribes to the rest of the world, in a favorable light.)
The way the 2000 report was released highlighted another problem with the World Bank, and how it doesn’t like to accept criticism on the current forms of globalization and neoliberalism. For the 2000 report, Ravi Kanbur, a professor from Cornell University had been asked to lead up the report team.
Kanbur won respect from NGO circles as he tried to be inclusive and take in a wide range of views, something the Bank has been criticized for not doing (which is a problem in itself!). However, as the report was to be published, he resigned because he was unreasonably pressured by the Bank to tone down sections on globalization, which, amongst other things called for developing nations to accept market neoliberalism cautiously.
The World Bank was apparently influenced itself by the US Treasury on this—this is not new though; critics have long pointed out that the Bank is very much influenced by the US, thus affecting the chance of real progress being made on poverty issues around the world.
The following quotes collected from the Bretton Woods Project, reveal some interesting insights:
The Washington Consensus has emerged from the Asia Crisis with its faith in free markets only slightly shaken. Poverty eradication is now the menu, but the main dish is still growth and market liberalisation, with social safety nets added as a side dish, and social capital scattered over it as a relish. The overall implication of the resignation is fairly clear. The US does not want the World Bank to stray too far from its agenda of economic growth and market liberalisation. Ravi Kanbur’s draft has raised a few too many doubts about this agenda, and strayed too much towards politics.
The Nation, Bangkok, 5 July, 2000
To keep the Bank afloat Wolfensohn has to steer between two major constituencies. The first are the critics, the second is the US Treasury. You don’t need to be a World Bank economist to do the cost benefit analysis. To save the Bank, and his own reputation, it is essential that the Bank’s policies and public pronouncements do not err too far from its main shareholder and political protector, the US Treasury.
Focus on Trade<, Issue Number 51, Focus on the Global South, June 2000
The World Bank has often come under criticism for its development projects not actually helping the societies that they claimed they will. One such example is the numerous dam projects that have seen lives devastated, where millions have been displaced and people have not seen the benefits promised, while at the same time, the environment has degraded and crucial arable land has been flooded. This is discussed further on this site’s hunger and poverty causes section.
The World Bank’s actual monetary investment amount was just four percent of the cost. However their participation and stated commitment to poverty-combating development gave political backing that allowed multinational oil companies (who were the main investors) to raise sufficient capital on the international capital markets, which they would not have been able to otherwise do.
The World Bank had therefore highlighted this project as a prototype for the extractive industry, designed to carry oil wealth not to a few but to the mass of the poor.
walking and bike (health you - earth)
Poverty in Industrialized Countries
But poverty is not restricted just to developing countries. Industrialized nations are also seeing a sharp increase in poverty. While the current form of globalization is resulting in additional wealth, the disparities are sharp. Less people are turning out to be benefiting while an increasing number are left behind.
Even in places such as Europe and USA, poor people still do not seem to get enough attention or resources to help alleviate their problems. For example, consider Britain:
Even though Britain is one of the most affluent members of the European Union (EU), a report shows that UK is the worst place in Europe to be growing up if you are poor, as more children are likely to be born in to poverty there, compared to elsewhere in the EU.
The UK National Office of Statistics also shows that disparities between rich and poor continue to grow in UK, as reported by a UK newspaper, The Independent, April 2000. Priorities of the Labour Party government have often been questioned (as with priorities of any party) but highlighted by how at the turn of the century, some 150,000 people were homeless in Britain, yet the government helped build the Millennium Dome, that cost over a billion US dollars. Andrew Simms, policy director of the New Economics Foundation in an article mentioned further above about inequality notes that
Crime and unhappiness stalk unequal societies. In the UK the bottom 50% of the population now owns only 1% of the wealth: in 1976 they owned 12%. Our economic system’s incentive structure, instead of “trickle-down”, is causing a “flood-up” of resources from the poor to the rich. Inequality leads to instability, the last thing the country or world needs right now.
Even the former hardline conservative head of the International Monetary Fund, Michel Camdessus, has come to the conclusion that “the widening gaps between rich and poor within nations” is “morally outrageous, economically wasteful and potentially socially explosive”.
Andrew Simms, Now for a maximum wage, The Guardian, August 6, 2003A UNICEF report in February 2007 finds that UK is failing its children as it comes bottom of all industrialized nations in terms of child well being. UK child poverty has doubled since 1979, for example.
prison population (usa proverty)
As another example, the U.S. is worth looking at as well.
It may be surprising to most people to realize that USA, the wealthiest nation on Earth, has the widest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized nation, and disparities continue to grow (See also this article and this article about how the media deals with such issues.) United For a Fair Economy reported that for 1998 almost 70% of the wealth was in the hand of the top 10%. In another report, they mention that the gap has widened in recent decades. “In 1989, the United States had 66 billionaires and 31.5 million people living below the official poverty line. A decade later, the United States has 268 billionaires and 34.5 million people living below the poverty line-about $13,000 for a three-person family.” Even during the “booming economy” (for some in society, not all) in the late 1990s and early 2000, there was an increasing gap between the rich and poor. Even into 2002, fighting poverty appears not to have been a major election campaign issue as with recent previous election campaigns. Then chairman of the Federal Reserve, Allan Greenspan, revealed concerns in mid-2005 that the increasing and widening income gap might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself in the US. While health and education are key to any economy or nation to grow and be strong, both of these suffer issues of access, equality and pressure to cut back (including elsewhere around the world as discussed in the structural adjustment part of this site).
For example, as a summary of a report titled Economic Apartheid in America mentions, “that the United States is the only industrialised nation that ‘views health care as a privilege, not a basic human right.’”. (Unfortunately the report itself not available on the Internet, but is produced by United for a Fair Economy where you can see many extracts and similar reports.)
In addition, as good education is linked to a strong economy, Business Week reports on a study that analyses OECD data from 1994 to 1998, and summarizes that “the literacy of American adults ranks 10th out of 17 industrialized countries.” In addition, the issue of inequality was highlighted: “More troubling, the U.S. has the largest gap between highly and poorly educated adults, with immigrants and minorities making up the largest chunk of those at the bottom.” While Business Week concentrates on the U.S. they also point out that “Despite the mediocre U.S. ranking, it still beat out most of its major trading partners except Germany, including France, Britain, and Italy. (Japan didn’t participate [in the study].)”The above-mentioned UNICEF report on child health found that as well as the UK being ranked bottom of all rich countries, the US ranked second to last. The report suggests that absolute wealth isn’t necessarily a guarantor of poverty alleviation or a measure for indicators such as child well-being, and factors such as inequality are also important.
And it isn’t in just these two industrialized nations that these problems persist. A Guardian news report, for example, shows that certain types of poverty in various European cities can be regarded as worse than in some other parts of the world which one would not normally think would compare with Europe, such as India.
Author by Anup Shah Created: Monday, July 20, 1998
America's so-called "religious right" has been one of the pillars of Republican Party support in recent decades, but signs are emerging that those once secure foundations might be shifting.
In both George W Bush's presidential victories, he managed to secure a vast majority of the evangelical Christian vote.
In 2004, the "hot button" policies curtailing abortion and same-sex marriage were seen as being crucial to Republican electoral success in, for example, the key swing states of Ohio and Florida.
But in last November's Congressional races - where Democrats regained control of both the House and the Senate - some Republican defeats came at the hands of a new religiously-inspired movement, which some are calling the "evangelical left".
Switching allegiance?
The reality may be that the new movement is more centrist - and fed-up with being lumped in with the orthodox religious right leadership.
It is not so much that swathes of once Republican-supporting evangelicals are switching allegiance but more a question of taking a sceptical look at the narrow agenda that has defined their relationship with the Republican Party, according to John Green, of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
"This whole thing is not a struggle over ideology, it's a struggle over power" Pastor Joel Hunter
"Questions like climate change, poverty and international human rights are coming to the fore, in a community that didn't used to talk about these things at all," Mr Green said.
Evidence of a subtle realignment, can be seen in the main sanctuary of Northland Church, in Orlando, Florida - a space that used to be a roller-skating rink until it was taken over by Pastor Joel Hunter.
The conservatively-dressed but sprightly mid-Westerner serves a 7,000-strong congregation that broadcasts its services live to thousands more on the internet.
He recently wrote a book caRight Wingt Wing, Wrong Bird" outlining his concerns, and hopes for the future.
"There has to emerge a new constituency and a new set of leaders for the evangelical Christians in this country," he told the BBC Heart and Soul programme.
Power struggle
"We want to build a culture of life - but that includes the vulnerable outside the womb, as well as the vulnerable inside the womb.
"We've had too long a time where we make people who disagree with us into enemies," he added.
"I think that's not Christ-like or even intelligent. This whole thing is not a struggle over ideology, it's a struggle over power."
The call to broaden the agenda as the campaign for the White House intensifies is looked on with dismay just a few miles from Northland Church by activists who still back the fundamentalist strategies of the religious right.
John Stemberger is an attorney and president of the Florida Family Planning Council, who respects Joel Hunter's conservative credentials, but not his argument.
"The institutions of marriage and the family are under attack," he said.
"The problem with the religious left is that they are helping the party that we believe is going to reverse the flow.
"None of us think the Republicans are saints ... but you have to pick a party in order to play the game, and be successful in enacting policy in our country."
"I think in many cases they (the religious right) have become intoxicated with a taste of power" Mike Huckabee, Republican presidential candidate
The politicians most affected by fissures among conservative religious voters, are the Republican presidential candidates vying for their support.
Mike Huckabee is a former governor of Arkansas and a Baptist minister.
Despite his religious credentials, he is trailing far behind the current front-runner, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
It is a sign of the complex new relationship between the religious right and the Republicans that Mr Giuliani, who is dubbed "America's Mayor", is doing all he can to avoid talking about his own Catholicism, mindful perhaps that thrice-married candidates can hardly be strong on personal morality issues.
'Blowing bridges up'
Mr Huckabee is disillusioned by the behaviour of the religious right leadership.
He said: "I think in many cases, they've become intoxicated with a taste of power.
"They like it - they're now looking at 'well, who's going to win, because we want to make sure that we're attached to the inevitable winner,'" he told the BBC.
He thinks the religious right could be throwing away its positive influence.
"Political affiliation is not as important as what the candidate believes" Gary Whitlock
"If they don't have something about which they are uniquely united ... they really serve no particular purpose," he said.
But back in Florida, the evidence on the ground is that voters who identify strongly with the religious right cannot be taken for granted and will not be told what to think anymore.
Sitting with a glass of iced-tea in the spacious home of Gary Whitlock - whose family all worship at Northland Church - he talked about how he had worked tirelessly to get out the vote for George W Bush.
Old certainties have changed and he is not certain that he will be voting Republican in 2008.
He said: "I'm not so sure the political affiliation of the person that's elected is important, so much as what the person who's elected believes.
"What the political process needs to have more of is bridge-builders, rather than people who are blowing bridges up and trying to create chasms between us."
* You can hear this second part of Matt Wells's documentary series on religion and politics in the US, on the BBC World Service's Heart and Soul programme, which airs on July 28. Check your local World Service schedule for transmission times
New rules have been passed in the San Francisco Bay Area that will require businesses to pay fees for the amount of carbon dioxide they emit.
The rules, due to come into effect on 1 July, could cost big emitters more than $50,000 (£25,000) a year, but most firms will pay less than $1 (50p).
Backers say the move sets an important precedent for the rest of the US.
But opponents say it may interfere with plans to introduce much tougher emissions targets across California.
The state's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, signed a landmark law designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change in 2006.
The California Air Resources Board is due to release its preliminary proposals to implement the law next month, with a final plan to be approved later this year.
Opposition
San Francisco's new fees, voted in by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and said to be the first of their kind in the US, will cover more than 2,500 businesses in nine counties. Companies will have to measure and report their own emissions before being charged 4.4 cents (2.2p) per ton of carbon dioxide they release.
The biggest payers will be a handful of power plants and oil refineries in the region. The charges are expected to generate some $1.1m in their first year, which will help pay for programmes to measure and control local greenhouse gas emissions. Many Bay Area firms have opposed the move, saying it may make it more difficult and expensive to do business in the region, the Associated Press reports.
Cathy Reheis-Boyd, chief operating officer for the Western States Petroleum Association, told the AP that a broader state-wide plan was needed to address climate change. "We believe it's premature for local air districts to design local programmes before we have state programmes," she said.
The Bay Area is home to some seven million people and is among the wealthiest regions of the US.
But suppose God is black? What if we go to Heaven and we, all our lives, have treated the Negro as an inferior, and God is there, and we look up and He is not white? What then is our response?...
If any man claims the Negro should be content... let him say he would willingly change the color of his skin and go to live in the Negro section of a large city. Then and only then has he a right to such a claim...
Progress is a nice word. But change is its motivator. And change has its enemies... Few will have the greatness to bend history itself; but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total; of all those acts will be written the history of this generation.... It is not enough to understand, or to see clearly. The future will be shaped in the arena of human activity, by those willing to commit their minds and their bodies to the task..
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream
of things that never were, and ask why not?... Tragedy is a tool for the living
to gain wisdom, not a guide by which to live. I thought they'd get one of
us, but Jack, after all he's been through, never worried about it I thought
it would be me...
To continue on the theme of “Terror” and “Terrorist”, Keith Olberman of MSNBC seems to be trumpeting the voice of the liberal media to counter the madness and spin doctors of the Republican Party. Olbermann’s frequent rants on the Bush administration have more of a ring of “Fair and Balanced”, more so than the slogan carrying Fox News; the quaff of the Republican political majority.
The Bush Administration’s repeal of “Habeas Corpus”, the “Patriot Act” and other policies has eroded the fundamentals of the American civil liberties established over 200 years ago. The recently signed “Military Commissions Act 2006” does away with “Habeas Corpus”; the rights against imprisonment without charge, and trail without defense, further it allows the CIA to use aggressive interrogation techniques (notice the root word “terror”) as long as it does not cause serious mental or physical pain
The basis for all of this, we are at WAR against a new enemy.The World Trade Centers fall on 9/11 over 3,000 killed. We know that Osama is responsible; we send 10,000 troops to capture him. We think that Saddam Hussein has WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) we send in over 300,000 troops, more than 3,000 soldiers killed or injured, body count continues moving upward. Neither the US nor anybody else in the world finds any WMDs’. The Republican Congress majority and the Supreme Court revises, and assaults the Constitution for the Bush Administration; 300,000,000 US citizens harmed!
The terror is inside our own borders! Pay attention to history, vote, so that you have a representative voice. You don’t always have to agree with congress, but there needs to be a “Fair and Balanced” approach to the justification of modifying the constitutional basis of our society. What is your definition of “an unlawful enemy combatant”? This is the key term, “an unlawful enemy combatant” ambiguous enough; you get that label slapped on you and you can kiss your ass goodbye; you may never be heard from again. Anybody seen Manuel Noriega lately?
Renaissance or Revolution you choose; but something gotta change for the masses, and this is not what I had in mind!
Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American ... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag ... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." Theodore Roosevelt 1907
Origins: Theodore Roosevelt was about to finish his first two-year term as governor of the state of New York when the Republican Party chose him as its candidate for Vice-President in the 1900 national election. The Republicans were victorious at the ballot box that year, but Roosevelt held the vice-presidency for less than a year
before he was elevated to the White House upon the assassination of President William McKinley on 14 September 1901, thereby becoming the youngest person ever to hold the office of President of the United States. Roosevelt was elected to a full term as president in 1904, and among his many notable achievements was his selection as a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate for his part in the negotiations leading to the Treaty of Portsmouth that ended the Russo-Japanese War in 1905.
Although Roosevelt did not hold public office again after leaving the presidency in 1909 (his efforts to regain the White House as a third party candidate in 1912 proving unsuccessful), he remained active in the public political sphere; in the waning years of his life, as World War I raged in Europe and America entered the conflict on the side of the Allies, he frequently spoke of his belief that immigrants taking up residence in the U.S. should assimilate into American society as quickly as possible, learn the English language, eschew hyphenated national identities (e.g., "Italian-American") and declare their primary national allegiance to the United States of America.
The year is 1907, one hundred
years ago … but the speaker knew what he was talking about.
Theodore Roosevelt’s ideas
on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907:
“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here
in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall
be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage
to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or
origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet
an American and nothing but an American. … There can be no divided allegiance
here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t
an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. …
We have room for but one language here and that is the English language
… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
Theodore Roosevelt 1907 Every American citizen needs to read this!
Myth Blaster Verdict: True, in so far as the speech/written words by Theodore Roosevelt; however the date 1907 is incorrect. The words come from a letter that was written shortly before Colonel/President Roosevelt’s death in January of 1919.
Theodore Roosevelt was about to finish his first two-year term as governor of the state of New York when the Republican Party chose him as its candidate for Vice-President in the 1900 national election. The Republicans were victorious at the ballot box that year, but Roosevelt held the vice-presidency for less than a year before he was elevated to the White House upon the assassination of President William McKinley on 14 September 1901, thereby becoming the youngest person ever to hold the office of President of the United States. Roosevelt was elected to a full term as president in 1904, and among his many notable achievements was his selection as a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate for his part in the negotiations leading to the Treaty of Portsmouth that ended the Russo-Japanese War in 1905. Although Roosevelt did not hold public office again after leaving the presidency in 1909 (his efforts to regain the White House as a third party candidate in 1912 proving unsuccessful) he remained active in the public political sphere; in the waning years of his life, as World War I raged in Europe and America entered the conflict on the side of the Allies, he frequently spoke of his belief that immigrants taking up residence in the U.S. should assimilate into American society as quickly as possible, learn the English language, eschew hyphenated national identities (e.g., “Italian-American”) and declare their primary national allegiance to the United States of America. On 1 February 1916, for example,
Roosevelt advocated measures for strengthening and ensuring the “loyalty” of American immigrants: Theodore Roosevelt, speaking at a luncheon given yesterday by Mrs. Vincent Astor for the National Americanization Committee in the Astor Court Building, declared that one of the reasons why many German-Americans have shown greater love for their native land that for their adopted country is that the German system demands greater loyalty than is demanded in this country, and a greater contribution to the common welfare. “And all of you know I am free from a taint of neutrality,” he added, “so I can say this without suspicion.”
The encouragement of better housing conditions and a compulsion to learn the English language, Colonel Roosevelt said, would help the process of Americanization.
… A few months later, Roosevelt expanded on this theme in a series of Memorial Day speeches he delivered in St. Louis: Moral treason to the United States was charged by Mr. Roosevelt, in an address delivered before the City Club, against German-Americans who seek to make their governmental representatives act in the interests of Germany rather than this country. He characterized the German-American Alliance as “an anti-American alliance,” but added that he believed that its members “not only do not represent but scandalously misrepresent” the great majority of real Americans of German origin. Using the motto “America for Americans” for all Americans, whether they were born here or abroad, the former President declared that “the salvation of our people lies in having a nationalized and unified America, ready for the tremendous tasks of both war and peace.” “I appeal to all our citizens,” the colonel said, “no matter from what land their forefathers came, to keep this ever in mind, and to shun with scorn and contempt the sinister intriguers and mischief makers who would seek to divide them along lines of creed, or birthplace or of national origin.” Col. Roosevelt said he came to St. Louis to speak on Americanism – to speak of and condemn the use of the hyphen “whenever it represents an effort to form political parties along racial lines or to bring pressure to bear on parties and politicians, not for American purposes, but in the interest of some group of voters of a certain national origin or of the country from which they or their fathers came.”
… In a Fourth of July speech in 1917, Roosevelt urged the adoption of linguistic uniformity, including a requirement that all foreign-language newspapers published in the U.S. should also include English translations … Likewise on 27 May 1918, Roosevelt urged in a speech at Des Moines, Iowa, that English be the sole language of instruction used in American schools. … The comments quoted at this head of the page are more in the same vein; excerpts not from (as claimed in the accompanying text) a statement made by Theodore Roosevelt in 1907 (while he was still President), but from a letter written shortly before his death in January 1919, just a few months after the armistice that ended the fighting in World War I:
NEW YORK, Jan. 6. – What was the last public statement by Col. Roosevelt was read last night at an “All-American concert” here under the auspices of the American Defense society, of which he was honorary president. “I cannot be with you and so all I can do is wish you Godspeed,” it read. “There may be no sagging back in the fight for Americanism merely because the war is over. There are plenty of persons who have already made the assertion that they believe the American people have a short memory and that they intend to revive all the foreign associations which more directly interfere with the complete Americanization of our people. Our principle in this matter should be absolutely simple. In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birthplace of origin. But this is predicted upon the man’s becoming in every fact an American and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn’t doing his part as an American. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, and American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house; and we have room for but one soul [sic] loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.”
I Believe in a Dream - Why America
The letter above can, in its entirety, be obtained from the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress (through which you can obtain a copy of this letter at their website).
On September 29th, 2005, Dr. John Fonte, Ph.D.. Senior Fellow and Director of the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC, provided testimony before the House of Immigration Subcommittee in a speech entitled “Dual Allegiance Harms Immigration Reform and Patriotic Assimilation” …
Thank you, Chairman Hostettler. … My testimony today has the endorsement of the Citizenship Roundtable, an alliance of the Hudson Institute and the American Legion, formed in 1999 to strengthen the integrity of the citizenship naturalization process and promote the patriotic assimilation of immigrants into the American way of life. … I would like to introduce into the record the entire American Legion Resolution Number 165.
(1) PATRIOTIC ASSIMILATION: THE REASON FOR AMERICA’S HISTORIC SUCCESS ASSIMILATING IMMIGRANTS Since the beginning of the Republic in the 18th century American political leaders have welcomed immigrants and at the same time insisted that they become loyal Americans. In 1794 President George Washington wrote to Vice-President John Adams on immigration policy.
Washington deplored the situation in which newcomers would remain isolated in immigration enclaves and cling to their old ways. He recommended that immigration policy encourage assimilation into the mainstream of American life and values so that immigrants and native-born Americans would “soon become one people.”
… During the Washington Administration, the U.S. Congress passed the Naturalization Acts of 1795 requiring candidates for citizenship to satisfy a court of admission as to their “good moral character” and of their “attachment to the principles of the Constitution.” Moreover, the new citizens took a solemn oath to support the Constitution of the United States and “renounce” all “allegiance” to their former political regimes.
Professor Thomas West of the University of Dallas and the Claremont Institute in Vindicating the Founders has noted that all the leading Founders, even long time ideological opponents Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton agreed that undivided political loyalty or what could be called patriotic assimilation was central to a successful immigration policy. Thomas Jefferson insisted on assimilating newcomers into the American political regime because he worried that the “greatest number of emigrants” will come from countries whose political principles differed greatly from American principles.
… And Jefferson’s major political rival, Alexander Hamilton agreed with him and the other Founders on the necessity of patriotic assimilation.
… During the period of large scale immigration, in the late 19thand early 20th centuries, American leaders, like the Founding Fathers before them, promoted the patriotic assimilation of immigrants. The language of Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Louis Brandeis paralleled that of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton in its insistence that newcomers assimilate to American values and give undivided loyalty to their new country. Theodore Roosevelt declared that:
“In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicted upon the man’s becoming an American and nothing but an American. … There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. … We have room for one soul (sic) loyalty and that is loyalty to the American people.” Republican Roosevelt’s major political rival Democrat Woodrow Wilson favored a similar approach to the patriotic assimilation of immigrants. In 1915, President Wilson told a mass naturalization ceremony of new citizens:“ I certainly would not be one even to suggest that a man cease to love the home of his birth … but it is one thing to love the place where you were born and it is another to dedicate yourself to the place in which you go.…
(II) THE TRANSFER OF ALLEGIANCE For more than 200 years, immigrants upon becoming American citizens have taken an “oath of renunciation and allegiance,” renouncing previous allegiance and pledging allegiance to the United States of America. …
(III) DUAL ALLEGIANCE IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE MORAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY Dual Allegiance is incompatible with the moral and philosophical basis of American constitutional democracy for two major reasons. First, dual allegiance challenges our core foundation as a civic nation (built on political loyalty) by promoting a racial and ethnic basis for allegiance and by subverting our “nation of (assimilated) immigrants” ethic. Second, dual allegiance violates a vital principle of American democracy: equality of citizenship. … [You can read the full testimony from the Congressional records at the In section VI, the oversight examines the Mexican Government policies: Among immigrant-sending countries Mexico is unique. It sends the largest number of immigrants (approximately 30% of all total immigration); the largest number of illegal immigrants (estimated five to six million of ten million illegal); it lost a large chunk of its national territory in the 19th century to the colossus to the north; and, of course, it shares a 2,600 mile border with the United States. In the 1990s, Mexico changed its strategy towards the
United States (e.g., greater economic integration, support for NAFTA, etc.) and towards Mexican-Americans, seeking to build closer relations with both. One of the tools of this new strategy was the slow, steady, but increasing promotion of dual allegiance for Mexican-Americans – the promotion, essentially, of the “ampersand”; and the effort to create a transnational political space and identity. Shortly before the Mexican Congress enacted its first version of the dual nationality law allowing many Mexican-American citizens to possess dual US-Mexican nationality, Linda Chavez voiced concerns in her syndicated column:
“Never before has the United States had to face a problem of dual loyalties among its citizens of such great magnitude and proximity. Although some other countries – such as Israel, Columbia, and the Dominican Republic allow dual nationality – no other nation sends as many immigrants to the United States nor shares a common border. For the first time, millions of U.S. citizens could declare their allegiance to a neighboring country.”
…
In practice for more than ten years the Mexican government has been deeply
involved in issues of American domestic policies: vigorously promoting particular
policies, working with special interest groups, and lobbying state legislatures.
The Mexican government strongly opposed Proposition 187 in California prohibiting
using non-emergency public funds, including education money for illegal
immigrants; and Proposition 227 in California that promoted learning English
and restricted bi-lingual programs that emphasized Spanish acquisition over
English. In opposing Proposition 187 the Mexican government coordinated
the meeting of the Zacatecas Federation of Los Angeles, California with
Zacatecas Federation of Chicago, Illinois, and facilitated the financial
contribution of the Chicago group to the anti-Proposition 187 cause in California.
As Banard Professor Robert C. Smith put it, “The theoretically interesting
thing is that these two groups organized within US civil society on the
basis of their common origin in a Mexican state [Zacatecas], being brought
together by the Mexican [nation] state and then participating together in
American politics in two different American states.” In recent years Mexican
government lobbyists in state capitols throughout the United States have
strongly advocated drivers licenses and special identification documents
(matricula consular) for illegal immigrants.
…
In 2004, the Mexican government opposed Arizona’s Proposition 200 that forbid
all but emergency funds going to illegal immigrants. Although this measure
passed overwhelming *by 56% of the vote, including 47% of Latino voters,
according to CNN) the Mexican government has even joined with American advocacy
groups (including MALDEF, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education
Fund) in a lawsuit to overturn the decision of the citizens of Arizona.
At the same time, the Mexican government with the acquiescence and support
of some American educational officials in American public schools is cultivating
dual allegiance among Americans of Mexican descent.
…
Mexican legislative bodies have reserved seats for deputies representing
“Mexicans living in the United States.” … It is sometimes argued that even
if the principle of retaining political loyalty to the “old country” is
inconsistent with the moral basis of American democracy, the result is a
good thing in practice because immigrant dual citizens promote “pro-American”
and “democratic” values in elections in their birth countries. This sounds
reasonable, but is not necessarily the case.
For
example, Mr. de la Cruz was elected as member of the traditionally anti-American,
Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD). The website of the California PRD,
the political home of many naturalized American citizens, contain blatant
lies about the United States, including the charge that “the Mexican migrant
who lives abroad [in the US] is a citizen without human rights” and efforts
to the get the US “to treat them as human beings” has “not been heard in
the structures of the American government.” This is a gross falsehood.
To
say that the Mexican immigrant, specifically the illegal immigration is part
of a Mexican Invasion is an understatement. The issue of illegal immigrants,
while it has been shelved temporarily is still ongoing. Despite of what the
majority of Americans want, in so far as immigration policy is still on the
back burner – and those who want to provide amnesty to 12 million or more
illegal immigrants that has been pushed by President Bush is still in the
minds of those who agree, despite countless protests from the American people
and the factual information provided by pundits and bloggers who show that
it is bad for America in several ways. And with Mexican government policy
being pushed within the various state governments in the United States and
President George W. Bush’s drive to create a North American Union (NAU) – America’s sovereignty is at stake, indeed the very foundation of what founded and created a nation as great as the United States of America. But the Congress and the White House are not listening, instead they are ignoring the facts of economic, social and constitutional endangerment is present now and turning for the worse in light of the illegal immigrant movement and its underlying Mexican invasive policy.
President Roosevelt speaks about being an American
We must listen and provide diplomacy
with other governments of other nations, providing a dialogue of peace and
compatibility in the areas of trade and human progress; however, we must not
allow or never allow any other national government to interfere with the infrastructure
of the government of the United States, whether it is federal, state or local.
President Theodore Roosevelt was right – there is only room for one flag and
one established official language – English. And so are those in Congress
who echo his words and theme of patriotic assimilation. We must continue to
welcome immigrants as long as there is room for their numbers, and a need
for their various career talents – but we cannot continue to create pockets
of nationalistic ethnic groups that are not loyal or patriotic to the American
way of life, its traditions and its values. For if we do, we might as well
begin drafting a book entitled: “The Rise and Fall of the United States of
America.”
He never really went away, but Rover is back in the middle of the Rethugs campaigning. He can deny it all he friggin wants to..but as this and this and this article show..TurdBlossom is alive and well and playing the smarmy bag of batshit once again. Just what Weathervane McCain needs..Krazy Karl. Steve Benen from the CarpetBagger Report via Alternet has this to say on the subject:
One, of course, is that McCain keeps trying to position himself as different from Still-President Bush, but that’s awfully difficult under the circumstances. Not only is McCain offering Bush’s foreign and domestic policies as his own, but he’s taking advice from the guy who shaped Bush’s campaigns.
Two, there is the small matter of journalistic ethics. For reasons that defy logic, Rove has been hired to play the role of professional “journalist” for a variety of outlets, including Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and Newsweek. No one seriously expects credible, independent, bias-free reporting from Rove, but no serious news outlet should be comfortable paying someone to offer commentary and analysis on a presidential campaign while simultaneously advising one of the candidates in the presidential campaign.
And three, the National Journal article also noted that Rove, when he’s not pretending to be a journalist and/or advising the McCain campaign, is also consulting with far-right campaign outfits.
Freedom’s Watch is the cream of the crop of the rightwing nutjobs. Rover is advising them as well as McCain. He is getting lots of facetime on Fox Noise lately too. At least ABC’s George Stephanopoulos had the nads to call it as he saw it recently when Rover was on his Sunday Morning show.
My only hope is that the American voters are tired of Rovers brand of divide and conquer. That bag of batshit is the last thing McCain’s campaign needs..which is probably why they want him..they suck in the polls lately.
From Bill Moyers Journal 6-13. Moyers examines the plight of the hard-working Middle Class and the problems they face attempting to provide for their families in our current economy. Workers productivity has increased 76% but wages have increased less than 2% in the last 30 years.
When asked what kind of advice he would give to the Syrians, here’s what the Republican President said yesterday:
Q (As translated.) To both of you, what specific, concrete requests do you wish to make or send to the Syrian President, Bashar Assad, so that he normalize his relations with the West, and of course to achieve stability in Lebanon and in the rest of –
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, my message would be, stop fooling around with the Iranians and stop harboring terrorists; serve as a constructive force in the Middle East to help the advance of a Palestinian state; make it clear to Hamas that terror should stop for the sake of peace; and make it clear to their Iranian allies that the West is serious when we talk about stopping them from learning how to enrich, which would be the first — a major step for developing a bomb; and to make it clear to their Iranian allies that Hezbollah is a destabilizing force for not only Lebanon but elsewhere.
That would be my message. I’d make it clear to him that there is a better way forward for Syria. And Nicolas and I talked about this subject today.
What? Are the Syrians teenage girls on an abstinence only education diet of health education?
What about the current situation in Iraq? Does he have some advice for the Iraqis?
Q I’d like to ask you a question first, Mr. President. (As translated.) And then a question to the President of France. (Speaking English.) President Bush, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says that talks on a status of forces agreement are at an impasse, or a dead end — not dead, but in trouble. How do you break this impasse, and are the conditions that the United States have set forward in support so far non-negotiable?
(As translated.) And to you, President, is the Franco-American relationship the privilege, the priority number one relationship in the transatlantic context?
And it’s interesting to be working with a democracy where, you know, people are trying to prepare the ground to get something passed in the parliament, for example, or the free press is vibrant. But we’re going to work hard to accommodate their desires. It’s their country.
And at the same time, we believe that a strategic relationship with Iraq is important. It’s important for Iraq. It’s important for the United States. It’s important for the region. And I repeat to you that whatever we agreed to, it will not commit future Presidents to troop levels, nor will it establish permanent bases.
Anyway, we’ll see how it goes. And thanks for the question — in English. (Laughter.)
Too bad the President has been making serious bets on Iraq wagering American GI lives and hefty sums of debt to the Chinese and others (which are tantamount to taxes deferred to prop up the new welfare state that is Iraq).
And, I cannot believe George Bush is still suggesting that we are there “at the invitation” of the Iraqis? We are no more there at the invitation of the Iraqis than your 25 year old college grad is staying at your house rent free until he gets his feet on the ground. You don’t like it, and you may love him, but you sure wish he would get the hell out. Moreover, you are enabling his lousy behavior by propping him up in a co-dependent way.
Regardless, I would have hoped that after nearly six years of experience running (or more aptly ruining) a war, that George W. Bush would have something more concrete to say than “we’ll see how it goes.”
The “Foolishness” of George Bush is that he comes at governance with the approach of an elementary school child - as if he’s got a lot more to learn, but just doesn’t quite get it. Too bad, because with Nine Eleven and the ensuing disasters (Iraq, Git mo, etc…) we really needed some adult style leadership, not the dualistic (”your either with us or against us”) approach of a juvenile.
Minimally, the W, Rove and Co, by proof of their actions, required much more adult supervision. Unfortunately, the republican controlled congress back in 2001 was entirely too eager to follow the swagger, accepting leadership by faith over fact, and abdicated their ability to provide such oversight.
And, I’ve said this before, the proof is in the pudding. We now have the economy and geopolitical situation the GOP had wished for. I’m not finding it all too palatable. Are you?
God is mighty, but does not despise men; he is mighty,
and firm in his purpose. [Job 36:5 NIV]
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. [1 Corinthians 13:4-7 NIV]
Whom have I in heaven but you? And earth has nothing I desire besides you. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.
The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners [Isaiah 61:1]
“For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you.” [Jeremiah 29:11-12 NIV]
The last days of Advent are a time when we anticipate and prepare to celebrate the birth-day of the One who comes to save, the poor humble man from Nazareth. I recall the ancient story of that pitiful time when, mother, father and son fled into the desert. What fear must have been in their hearts as they set out to face unknown dangers. Knowing the dangers of the desert, in desperation they had no choice but to heroically take the risk hoping, against impossible odds, they would find welcome and safety in a foreign land. And, when they reached the land of hoped for security they were met with a virtual wall of rejection and hostility. They would knock on door after door only to be turned away, only to hear the voices of those warm and comfortable in their homes say, "go away, you are not wanted here, go back to where you came from."
When I reflect on this story I cannot help but think of the thousands of parents and children who, in desperation, make a similar choice and face the dangers of the desert to come north in the hope of finding work with decent wages. I have listened to countless mothers and fathers say "Why? Why are we being treated so badly? We had no other choice, we wish harm to no one and yet we continue to live in fear that harm may be done to us, and that is no way to live. Why Padre? Are we such horrible people that we are turned away and told that there is no place for us in this land of immigrants in this the land of the free?
I do not despair because I know of places where the rejected poor are treated with respect and they are able to find welcome and shelter. These places of hospitality are dotted along the frontera with many of them just across the line in Mexico. These beacons of hope are known as Migrant Resource Centers. One of these centers is at the Mariposa Crossing on the west side of Nogales, Sonora. US-based groups No More Deaths, Tucson Samaritans and Green Valley Samaritans staff the aid station along side many Mexican volunteers – some of them deported migrants.
I am filled with gratitude. Not only am I grateful to the many volunteers and donors that help maintain this center of hospitality, I am also grateful to the State of Sonora Commission for the Attention of Migrants (Comision Estatal para Atencion a
Migrantes) under the leadership of Sr. Jose Antonio Rivera-Cortes, our much respected and loved 'Profe'. support from the Commission, Profe, and many Mexican volunteers that we have been able to assist over 200,000 injured, beaten, hungry and thirsty women, men and children in the 18 months that the aid station has been open.
I have seen people barely able to walk, exhausted from the journey and confused by the US deportation process enter the center with a vacant, fearful look in thier eyes, frightened children clinging to their mother being met by the Profe and the volunteers, giving themselves to welcome these children of God. How many broken bones and ankle sprains have been treated? How may thousands of blistered feet have received attention? How can you measure the reassurance that a smile and comforting word can bring?
Our marginalized brothers and sisters coming out of the desert on their way North have time and again taught me humility and compassion that leads me back to the path of justice that prepares the way of the Lord.
1. VOLUNTEER: People of all ages, backgrounds and levels of experience are needed to provide humanitarian aid, staff medical clinics, help with office and campaign strategies, and assist with multimedia documentation…and more! Volunteer information and applications can be found on our website, or you can contact us to have one mailed to you. Call, e-mail, or attend a No More Deaths meeting in Tucson or Phoenix to learn about current updates and opportunities.
2. DONATE OR RAISE MONEY FOR NMD: Feeding migrants, staffing humanitarian and political campaign work, and getting volunteers out in the desert to provide aid to migrants all takes money. We appreciate any help you can give! (Make checks payable to St Mark's Presbyterian Church and note "No More Deaths" in the memo line.) Click the "Donate Now" icon to the left to make a secure on-line donation. http://nomoredeaths.org/
By Perry Bacon Jr. A detailed analysis of the candidates' tax plans confirms one of Barack Obama's top arguments against John McCain: the Arizona senator's proposals would offer substantial benefits to wealthy Americans.
An analysis of both campaigns proposals by the Washington-based, nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that for people with incomes between $66,354 and $111,645, Obama's proposals would cut their taxes by more than $1000, compared to around $300 under McCain's plan. But for Americans with incomes above $603,402, Obama would raise their taxes dramatically, by more than $115,000 a year, while McCain would cut them by $45,000.
"The Obama tax plan would make the tax system significantly more progressive by providing large tax breaks to those at the bottom of the income scale and raising taxes significantly on upper-income earners," the group concludes. "The McCain tax plan would make the tax system more regressive.... It would do so by providing relatively little tax relief to those at the bottom of the income scale while providing huge tax cuts to households at the very top of the income distribution."
McCain argues that such high taxes on the wealthy will slow economic growth. And the report also gives credence to another of McCain's arguments about Obama's plan, it will raise taxes on seniors. Because seniors are more reliant on gains from investments and capital gains, which Obama would increase, the group estimates Obama would raise taxes on more than ten million seniors.
Obama has proposed exempting seniors who make less than $50,000 a year from paying taxes, an idea the Tax Policy Center said "is poorly designed according to its current description and creates inequity between older and younger taxpayers with the same income."
The group is skeptical about both candidates' ideas about closing the deficit, suggesting McCain has not been detailed in which programs he will cut, while Obama might be overestimating how much can be gained by combating loopholes in the tax code that allow corporations to reduce their tax burdens.
Denny Carr, MFA
Photographer and Video Artist
BIKE !!!! hase lepus trike (stroke-paralysis)
age 61 eco-friendly no-car
"I am a stroke survivor and deal daily with a speech disorder called Aphasia. This disorder is a result of my stroke in 2005. I am thankful God has given me the ability to express myself through my images and films." For more information, visit these websites: http://www.azimagery.com/
Posts
