Weekend Open Thread

Filed in National by on March 13, 2010

Welcome to a rain-soaked, windy open thread. I don’t know about you but I think I’m actually living in a marsh. Are you ready for an open thread?

Texas decided to cut Thomas Jefferson out of its history standards. He so inconvenient after all, with his insistence that there is a separation between church and state.

The Texas Board of Education has been meeting this week to revise its social studies curriculum. During the past three days, “the board’s far-right faction wielded their power to shape lessons on the civil rights movement, the U.S. free enterprise system and hundreds of other topics”:

– To avoid exposing students to “transvestites, transsexuals and who knows what else,” the Board struck the curriculum’s reference to “sex and gender as social constructs.”

– The Board removed Thomas Jefferson from the Texas curriculum, “replacing him with religious right icon John Calvin.”

– The Board refused to require that “students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others.”

– The Board struck the word “democratic” from the description of the U.S. government, instead terming it a “constitutional republic.”

All week we’ve been discussing incrementalism and progressive legislation. Steve Benen picks this up and discusses some important legislation and how they have changed:

On all of the major progressive breakthroughs from recent generations, it’s not even a close call.

When Medicaid passed, for example, it did very little for low-income adults, which is now seen as the point of the program. There were no doubt progressive advocates who, at the time of its passage, feared that it wasn’t ambitious enough, and that if they didn’t get improvements in the bill up front, they wouldn’t happen. With the benefit of hindsight, we know those fears were incorrect.

When Medicare passed, it all but ignored people with disabilities, didn’t cover prescription drugs, and made no allowances for home health services. It was, at best, a limited program at its inception. There may have been liberal Dems who thought that if they didn’t get improvements in the bill up front, they wouldn’t happen. With the benefit of hindsight, we know those fears were incorrect.

When Social Security passed, the benefits were negligible, and the program excluded agricultural workers, domestic workers, the self-employed, railroad employees, government employees, clergy, and those who worked for non-profits. The original Social Security bill offered no benefits for dependents or survivors, and included no cost-of-living increases. There were plenty of liberals at the time who thought Dems had watered down the plan to the point where its value had all but disappeared, and that if they didn’t get improvements in the bill up front, they wouldn’t happen. With the benefit of hindsight, we know those fears were incorrect.

Even the Civil Rights Act, in order to secure passage, needed to drop its voting rights provision. It wasn’t there up front, but it happened soon after.

Tags:

About the Author ()

Opinionated chemist, troublemaker, blogger on national and Delaware politics.

Comments (18)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. nemski says:

    There you go again UI, using facts.

  2. Brooke says:

    I’m telling you, at the rate those loonies in Texas are going, in 10 years everyone with a mind in the US will be asking me for my curriculum. I keep it in the box next to my info on home-based abortions, and my banned books of the bible.

  3. nemski says:

    I feel all dirty as I just read Frank Knotts latest post. Why, oh why did I do that?

  4. cassandra_m says:

    People who care about the education of kids need to start a effort to ensure that Texas schoolbooks don’t get on their kids’ desks. It is probably hard to get texts that haven’t been rewritten by the Texas Taliban, but I would think it would be worth it.

  5. In California there was a push to pass a law that books should have California standards and not Texas ones. I think that we should do that here as well.

  6. cassandra_m says:

    I had no idea that Granny D died this week. What an amazing spirit and inspiration.

  7. anonone says:

    Another Obomba broken promise: Lesbian Sgt. Discharged After Police Tell Military

    http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/03/13/us/AP-US-Lesbian-Sergeant-Discharged.html?_r=1

    Who is the Commander In Chief these days? I guess it is time for another 1 year study of repeal DADT.

  8. nemski says:

    anonone, after reading that story all you got of it was that the shameful situation was Obama’s fault. Seriously, you’ve got some issues.

  9. anonone says:

    Maybe it was someone else, but didn’t Obomba promise to end DADT, Nemski? This stuff should have stopped January 21, 2009.

  10. cassandra_m says:

    Glenn Beck thinks Born in the USA is un-American.

  11. anon says:

    Benen correctly points out that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid all started out with limited benefits which were increased later. This misses the point entirely.

    Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are fundamentally social insurance. But today’s HCR is built on a foundation of privatization.

  12. anon says:

    On a more positive note, there are two items in Obama’s HCR that, should they survive, are VERY progressive milestones. For the first time, the tax that funds Medicare and Medicaid will become progressive. Wage earners over $250K will pay at a higher rate, and investment income is no longer exempt.

    – The wage tax for Medicare/Medicaid is now 2.9% for all wage income. Obama is proposing to raise the rate an additional 0.9% on wages over $250K.

    – And Obama is proposing to tax *investment income* for the first time, applying a 2.9% Medicare/Medicaid tax to interest, capital gains, and dividends for incomes over $250K. This is revolutionary, and about time.

    So in some ways, apart from its own HCR provisions, Obama’s HCR is part of the ongoing incremental improvements for Medicare and Medicaid.

  13. Phil says:

    While the first three bullet points are garbage, our government is a constitutional republic. Its a pity that 90% of americans have no idea what that means.

  14. Phuny says:

    Record Number of Tax Filers Paid No Federal Income Taxes in 2008
    Tax Foundation ^ | March 10, 2010

    A record number of the 142 million tax returns filed in 2008 resulted in no tax payment, according to a Tax Foundation analysis of IRS data. That means the tax filers got back every dollar that had been withheld from their paychecks, and often more. Roughly 51.6 million tax returns, or 36.3 percent, were filed by such “nonpayers,” people whose exemptions, deductions and credits wiped out any federal income tax due.

    A family of four earning more than $50,000 can have no income tax liability after taking the standard deduction and the child tax credit.

    “Two records were set in 2008: the most nonpayers and the highest-earning nonpayers,” said Tax Foundation President Scott Hodge, who authored Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact, No. 214, “Record Numbers of People Paying No Income Tax; Over 50 Million ‘Nonpayers’ Include Families Making over $50,000.” The Fiscal Fact is available online at http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/25962.html.

    “Nonpaying status used to be a sure sign of poverty, but thanks to increased use of the tax code to deliver social benefits, incentivize behaviors and funnel money to targeted groups, middle-class families have now been pulled into the growing pool of nonpayers,” Hodge said. “We’re now in a situation where a record number of tax filers are completely disconnected from the cost of government.”

    The number of nonpayers has increased by 59 percent in less than a decade, growing from 32.6 million in 2000 to 51.6 million in 2008. In the same time period, the total number of tax filers grew by only 10 percent.

    The last record for the number of nonpayers was set in 2006, when 33 percent of tax filers paid nothing. A record has been set every year since 2002 (30.1 percent),

  15. anon says:

    The wealthy are now getting the money that used to go into our paychecks, so it is right that they should pay the tax on it. That is what happens when you pursue a cheap-labor policy that suppresses wages.

    Those “non-payers” are paying plenty of other taxes besides income tax. Not to mention that wealthy people who live off investment income are non-payers of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid wage taxes.

  16. cassandra m says:

    So wait — if taxes are such a bad thing, thaen all of theses people who have figured out how to not pay is a good thing, right?

    Wonder if the Tax Foundation studies the number of corporate filers who pay no taxes.

    I crack myself up.

  17. Geezer says:

    “We’re now in a situation where a record number of tax filers are completely disconnected from the cost of government.”

    Not exactly. Unlike those who live on investment income, they pay social security and FICA taxes, which for years now have in actuality been used as operating income. At 7.5%, that’s $3,750 in federal taxes on that household income without a nickel in “income” tax entering the mix.

    Considering it’s a family of four that reaches this condition at $50,000, Republicans should rethink their unblinking support for ever-increasing deductions for children. I mean, if they’re sincere about loathing taxes. Which is more important, you quasi-humans, low taxes or incentives to have more children?

  18. Brooke says:

    I pay my next door neighbor’s county taxes. She never says “Thank you”, either.