Amazingly enough, the lessons from the 2000 election did in fact go largely unlearned. What is not so surprising is that after winning an election fraught with even more irregularities and partisan shenanigans than the first one, the Bush administration feels flush with "political capital", and the word "mandate" has crept into the President's famously limited vocabulary. After running millions of dollars worth of advertisements attacking John Kerry's honor and working double time to let the public know that a vote for Kerry means certain death at the hands of terrorists, the Republicans have managed to convince themselves that this election was won on "the issues". Following Senator Kerry's quick much under-touted party platforms have come out of the closet. One of the first initiatives appears to be the first shot in what I believe will shape up to be George W. Bush's war on The New Deal and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.

The Bush administration has indicated its willingness to slash Medicaid—the nation's largest health care program for poor and disabled Americans—in order to address the massive budget deficits caused by his tax cuts for the wealthy. Despite sharp increases in poverty, and restricted eligibility and increased co-payments already scheduled for Medicaid in 2005, the Bush administration thinks the poor should do more to help pay for his tax cuts.

• State governments are already slashing health care for the poor to pay for Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, whose own state faces an $800 million Medicaid shortfall this year, says Medicaid funding is "the No. 1 issue among governors." Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen has proposed dismantling his state's popular TennCare program due to cost concerns. And Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour has initiated a cost-cutting measure, currently delayed, that could cut up to 65,000 old and disabled citizens from Medicaid.
  
  
• Americans overwhelmingly reject cutting health care for the poor and disabled. A survey by GOP pollster Linda A. DiVall found that "only 7 percent of Americans…think the government is spending too much on Medicare, and only 6 percent say the same about Medicaid," according to The Union Leader. So how do Americans think President Bush should trim the budget deficit? DiVall found that 59 percent "favor reductions in tax cuts for those with over $200,000 a year in taxable income."
  
  
• Rather than punishing the poor for Medicaid costs, President Bush ought to go after inflated charges by drug companies and pharmacists. At a time when the government complains it cannot afford basic health benefits for the nation's poorest citizens, a congressional investigation found that "drug stores paid an average of 22 cents for seven widely prescribed generic medicines, but received 56 cents in reimbursements from Medicaid," according to the Boston Globe.
  

*Data courtesy of the Center for American Progress

Cities should obey the Governor and the Law

I was stunned to learn that cities and towns like Worcester, Springfield, Provincetown, and my hometown of Somerville were resisting Governor Romney’s demands that they hand over the marriage license applications from out-of-state couples of the same sex who came to Massachusetts seeking equal treatment under the law. I sincerely hope Mayor Joe Curtatone and his peers in other cities will obey the spirit of Governor Romney’s request and turn over marriage license applications. All of them. I hope to read in tomorrow’s papers that copies of every marriage license application ever issued in the history of Somerville, Worcester, Springfield, and Provincetown were boxed up and shipped to the Governor’s office. Since the law being applied was originally designed and enacted to prevent interracial marriage, perhaps the applications should be filed alphabetically, so Governor’s Romney’s dedicated workers can sift out any suspicious-sounding name combinations (I’m sure they can spot “black” names and “white” names when they see them). The Governor’s staff can make a truly thorough search through all licenses and, in the spirit of equal treatment under the law, seek out any applications that were filed in violation of it.

The Inheritance Tax: As American as Apple Pie

Following the midterm elections of 2002, Republicans have been downright gleeful over the prospect of putting into effect their vision of America. One of the widest planks of the Republican platform has long been the reduction in almost all taxes, and the total abolition of the Estate Tax. GOP strategists nicknamed the estate tax the “Death Tax”, an oversimplification that suits their purpose in steering the limited thinking and short attention spans of the average listener. Proponents of an estate tax repeal base their argument almost wholly on the slogan-like idea that the inheritance tax is a form of double taxation. Opponents of the tax love to look into the faces of listeners and say “you’re being taxed twice on the same money!” This argument is false on its face. The individual who earns wealth is taxed as the money is attained, then the inheritor, a completely different person who has not earned any of the money but is simply being given this fortune, is taxed upon receipt of the wealth. Each person is taxed on their income, earned or inherited. Though the money is being taxed twice, it is misleading to suggest that it is being taxed twice while in the hands of a single person (the “you” in their argument falsely intimates that one person sees this tax burden twice)

The idea of a family dynasty, sitting atop a fortune, passing it down through generations, is anathema to the vision our founding fathers put forth during the formation of our republic. Americans reject the idea of a landed aristocracy, hoarding the nation’s resources and hanging on to vast fortunes in perpetuity. We are a nation built upon the idea of earning one’s own fortune. The self-made man is hero in our culture, a culture where the “poor little rich boy” is disdained by the self-styled hard working masses who strive day in and day out to provide for themselves and their families. Our nation is also home to the most entrepreneurial people in the world. With a plethora of ideas, backed by hard work and sacrifice, many Americans have risen from obscure backgrounds to financial greatness.

"Opponents of Gay Marriage consistently find themselves in the wrong place, at the wrong time"


My partner and I tried to find something new in the argument against full, equal rights for gays in the presentation by an evangelical minister at a Harvard University-sponsored debate. The Reverend, however, couldn't shift his side of the debate out of bible mode. His answer to almost every point made by his opponent, a MassEquality Co-Chair, was to point to the book of Genesis and assert that the bible is the one true source of the doctrine of all men being created equal. Make sense? We didn't get it either, but his view is essentially that government does not grant rights, only "the god of the bible" does. His bible, his god, his rights. Any attempt to acknowledge the rights of a group not specifically enumerated in his bible would represent a break from "the god of the bible". I'm not sure what the consequences would be, but this argument does come from a man who states, quite matter-of-factly, that the terror attacks of 9/11 are the direct result of what he calls "broken marriage covenant" (which he used to segue into a lecture on the tale of Abraham and Isaac, the alleged biblical source of emnity between Jews and Arabs)


The end result was, for me, a crystalization of what is wrong with the anti-gay marriage crowd. They can't make a cogent case. All this group has been able to do, regardless of the forum or context of any debate or discussion, is to bring out their interpretation of the Christian Bible and insist that their religion trumps any government document. They brush off questions of the separation of church and state by referring to the Pledge of Allegiance, our currency, and the Declaration of Independance as evidence that our government and the very republic are based on christian religious doctrine. The Supreme Court may soon remedy these inconsistencies, stripping foes of equality of the only non-biblical objects to which they can refer. What they consistently fail to do is address this issue for what it truly is: an issue of law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the year 2004.


Those of us who favor equality easily grasp that this is a government issue taking place in the here and now, but our opponents are at a loss for any legal or intellectual support to their views, they have only the ancient text upon which their religion is based. For those of us living in the present, the need to stop this theocratic slide into history becomes more important with each bible lesson our foes subject us to.