Role of government

Oh, and the right-wing commentariat is still insisting that government spending is wasteful and ineffective — that is, that government never creates anything of value.

Fact: private enterprise skims the easy profits. Big investments in infrastructure, as well as in R&D, usually require government participation because profit is too far in the future for private businesses and investors to want to do what's needed.

Tax Cuts

So Gov. Bobby Jindal — who thinks it's OK for public schools to teach religious doctrine in place of science — says that the economic stimulus bill relied too much on spending instead of on tax cuts.

The fact: the stimulus bill made the largest tax cut in the history of the United States — just as Candidate Obama promised.

But it only reduces taxes for 95% of working people. It doesn't reduce taxes for the wealthiest 5%. If you earn more than $250,000 per year, the Republican party wants to be your friend.

No such report?

Republicans in Congress have been citing a Congressional Budget Office report stating that most of the money in the proposed economic stimulus package wouldn't be spent before 2011.

There's no such report. There are some unpublished figures that the CBO gave to some members of Congress, but they don't prove that. They apply only to the portion that the Appropriations Committee deals with (not with the Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce portions), they're based on a previous version of the bill, and the CBO is recalculating them.

Ryan Grim explains it here.

Common sense should tell anyone that investment in infrastructure will take some time to gear up. You don't just run down to Walmart and buy a bridge, a highway, or a national fiberoptic network. Even repairing what we've got isn't instantaneous.

But that's a good thing. Including big infrastructure investments in the plan ensures that we won't waste all the money on crap from China.

Persecution--NOT

A recent letter to my local newspaper announces the formation of a Web site to document the persecution of Christians.

The writer sent the letter to my local paper because our city (I call it that even though I live outside the city limits) has gained a reputation in the blogosphere for persecuting Christians. This comes from a 2007 incident in which people who identify themselves as Christians attempted to disrupt a rally in the downtown park in favor of gay and lesbian rights, were arrested, and were convicted in city court.

The people who were convicted are now disingenuous about it: they've been claiming that they only wanted to pray near the rally, but both the original news reports and the court testimony show that they interfered directly in the rally. Jason Hughes has written more about it here.

By now everyone should be used to the idea that any rally or demonstration is likely to attract a counter-demonstration. Police departments are certainly used to it and know that their responsibility is to protect the rights of people on both sides by allowing both groups to demonstrate while preventing direct confrontations. Typically this means allocating a separate space to each group, such as opposite sides of the street. Swing by the United Nations building in New York City if you want to see how this works.

The writer of the original letter asked if he'd be arrested for praying in my city, which is one of the most conventionally religious towns I know. The answer is no. He'll be free to pray on a street corner, even to preach from that street corner. If he attempts to preach from the middle of a busy intersection, or to disrupt anyone else's lawful speech, it's another matter.

Reagan didn't save the US economy

What he did was start us down the path that led to where we are now.

Thom Hartmann explains it at the end of this interview.

The War on Hanukkah

Recently I was interviewed by a reporter for local television news. They were planning a feature about the so-called War on Christmas and wanted me to be the representative of our tiny Jewish community (that role is part of my job).

The reporter didn't seem to know very much about the issue, which is typical in small-town stations where most of the reporters are fresh out of school (where they probably majored in "communication"). She was fixated on the retail-sales aspect that James Dobson and Bill O'Reilly keep yammering about: should store associates say "Happy Holidays" or "Merry Christmas"? Was I offended if a checkout clerk said "Merry Christmas" to me?

I replied that I tried to accept the greeting in the spirit in which it was intended, but usually responded with "Happy New Year." I was about to say that the difficulty was in knowing exactly what that spirit is, but I thought better of it and stopped talking. I think that this is the only part of the interview that they used.

I did add that most people say what is comfortable and familiar, but it's not much of a problem in real life.

Then she asked about gift cards and gift certificates. Apparently some stores have special gift cards or gift certificates made for Christmas giving. Should those refer to Christmas or just "happy holidays"? I said that I didn't care whether stores had special gift cards for Hanukkah, because every store has a standard, no-message gift that is available year-round. But I asked: if a store had a special "Happy Hanukkah" gift card, would you give one to someone you knew wasn't Jewish?" The reporter seemed startled.

From that she somehow extrapolated that I had no problem with Christmas trees, Christmas carols, Christmas concerts, or Christmas parties in public schools. In fact, I have problems with all of those things, albeit in varying degrees. I told her that public schools were a different question, because the school district is an arm of government and the Establishment Clause of the Constitution applies, and because school attendance is compulsory. She seemed startled again.

Right now our local public high school has a large wreath on the front of the building. I wish it weren't there; to my eye it looks like an endorsement of religion. I distrust arguments that a Christmas tree, or a wreath, or whatever, isn't really a religious symbol (even though I know that the tree, in particular, has no religious meaning and that courts have held that it is not a religious symbol). I tend to see the defense of Christmas decorations, concerts, and parties as a form of Christian triumphalism, even if the triumphalism is more cultural than religious.

So where did this so-called War on Christmas idea originate? The greatest number of people probably associate it with O'Reilly (even though his employer, Fox News, and its parent, News Corporation, consistently proclaim "Happy Holidays," not "Merry Christmas"), or with James Dobson and Focus on the Family, which organized a boycott of stores that don't force Christmas on their customers.

But it turns out that the claim that there is a War on Christmas really originates with anti-Semitic, white nationalist groups. So please understand why I'm suspicious of claims that it subjects Christianity to unfair discrimination if anyone at all says "Happy Holidays."

From the point of view of a Jewish educator, all this complaining about a War on Christmas constitutes a War on Hanukkah, in various senses. First, it's a claim that the United States is a Christian nation, maybe even a Christians-only nation. Since Jews have lived here since 1654, when New York was still New Amsterdam, this is a strange idea.

Second, it's a claim that there is pervasive discrimination against Christianity and Christians in the United States. Given that Christianity is more successful here than in any other modern democracy (and maybe even more successful than in some medieval monarchies where the king could force it on everyone at the point of a sword), such a claim is just bizarre. If any religion is suffering from discrimination in the U.S., it's not Christianity.

So let's all give up the War on Hanukkah. Let individuals say whatever they like as a greeting, including saying nothing. Let retailers do whatever they think is best for business. And stop using a mendacious and unnecessary defense of religion to build ratings, raise money, or whatever you're using it for.

Sarah Palin needs a jolt of something

By now everyone has surely seen the infamous “turkey interview”—the one in which Sarah Palin pardons a turkey before Thanksgiving and then proceeds to give another of her aw-shucks interviews while other turkeys are being slaughtered in the background.

But it's what Sarah is sayin’ in her interviews that really caught my attention. She is still sayin’ that the solution to America's problems is for “government to get outta the way.”

Hey, Sarah, wake up and smell the coffee! It's clear to just about everyone else, even your fellow Republicans, that a big part of the blame for the country's economic situation rests with the government for stayin’ out of the way. Just about everyone else has seen that totally unregulated free-marketism (is there such a word?) has been a disaster.

Now, there are some things I wish the government would stay out of. My bedroom, for example. Unfortunately, those are the areas that Palin and her ilk want the government to interfere in.