Religion, Politics, and Same-Sex Marriage

Minnesota currently faces a proposed change to its Constitution that would prohibit the legalization or recognition of marriage for same-sex couples. The foundation for the support for this amendment comes from various religious groups in spite of the fact that many who oppose the amendment are also people of faith. The disconnect between these two groups and the use of the Constitution as the battle ground illustrates why religion has no place in politics.

In the United States, the foundation of our political lives are our federal and state Constitutions. No federal or state law may violate the United States Constitution, and no state law may violate the state Constitution of that state. The proposed amendment would add the following:

Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota.

Like all language, the language of the Constitution is subject to interpretation and may be interpreted differently by different individuals. The above language may seem crystal clear, but it leaves open a number of questions, including:

• Can the state eliminate marriage in MN and create a new kind of union available to all?
• What is it to “recognize” a marriage?
• Is it illegal for my business to recognize the marriage of a same-sex couple married in a state where it’s legal?

I’m not trying to launch an argument about the meaning of this amendment, but instead to illustrate how any such arguments might be resolved. One of the beauties of the United States system is that we have an entity to serve as the arbiter of what the language in our Constitutions and laws means. It’s the judicial branch with the Supreme Courts serving as the ultimate authority. When we disagree about what the Constitution means on any subject, we bring it to the courts and they tell us. Once it gets to the Supreme Court, that decision is final unless we amend the Constitution to change the meaning.

Religion, on the other hand, has no such unquestioned universal authority. When people disagree about the Bible as they do with the issue of same-sex marriage, who is the interpreter?

The idea that the Bible is the “word of God” is often the foundation of this problem. The reality is that the Bible was written in human language by human beings and translated many times over many centuries by many humans. Many of these humans held very human, very political agendas when perform their translations. Compare any two Bibles, and their words in English are often materially different. Humans are imperfect. Human language is imperfect. Any attempt by humans to communicate the word of God will be inherently imperfect. In fact, any attempt by humans to understand the word of God will be inherently imperfect.

So who interprets the Bible for society? The United States Constitution was born of a world waging constant wars in Europe over different interpretations of the Bible. There can be no interpreter of the Bible or any other religious document for society, only for members of that religion. The Pope is the final authority of the Bible for Catholics. Non-Catholics would be very, very wary of accepting Papal authority of interpreting the Bible. Similarly, most people of Western faiths would be wary of a secular state interpreting the Bible as the Communist Party does in China.

The Bible can have no single authority to which we can appeal for interpretation and, as a result, cannot form the basis of our Constitution and our laws. It has no place in our politics.

The LA Riots as They Happened: 4/30/1992

So far, over 300 fires to buildings have been set, and more than 1700 fire incidents so far reported. All of Los Angeles is a war zone, even the valley. We have a dawn to dusk curfew set for tonight, and there has been talk of martial law. Riots have been reported in North Hollywood and Panorama City, both just blocks from here. I heard that fire has been set to the mall in Panorama City, but I have heard no confirmation of it. There were also reports of rioting two blocks from here. Buildings in Hollywood and West Los Angeles are burning. The company I work for, the Wherehouse, has so far lost 3 stores that have been burnt to the ground. How can hundreds of people be running around this city unchecked destroying everything in their paths? The scene is so incomprehensible. It is like a hurricane, but even eerier. It is like we are waiting for the world to end.

I just went outside. It is like someone dropped a neutron bomb on the city (note: notice how I didn’t use contractions then, even in an informal setting like a journal? very odd!). No cars, no people. The city around here is dead.

Earlier today, I went to the Wherehouse to check on the situation there. We were getting reports of riots in the area, so we shut down the store at 4:00pm. Chitra and Rich (note: two of my co-workers at the Wherehouse) ended up coming over for a sort of war slumber party. While we were sitting around talking at about seven, we smelled smoke. Thick smoke. We still smell it, but the glow to the event we saw earlier has disappeared. The smoke is still causing me to cough.

The police have come by, saying on their loudspeakers that everyone should get inside and stay inside.
We have had reports that the 7-11 store one block away has been sacked and looted. On the news, we see a place in Panorama City burning to the ground.

The LA Riots as They Happened: 4/29/1992

Note: The following entry comes from a journal I kept of the Los Angeles Riots that occurred from April 29, 1992 until May 3, 1992. The words are actual words from when I was 23 years old and living in Van Nuys, CA. I have also packaged the whole thing into tweets under the Twitter handle @GR_LARiots.


Does civil war begin today? As I wrote this (note: how goofy of me to use the past tense in a journal entry?), the news just reported another earthquake in Hot Springs, 3.4. Late last week there was a 6.0 earthquake in Northern California with several strong aftershocks. This is weird.

Anyway, Los Angeles is beginning to feel more and more like a war zone.

Just a few hours...

Within the last 20 minutes, we have had 2 riots break out (violent), an earthquake, and a police helicopter making an emergency landing on TV.

Back to where I was...

Just a few hours ago, the verdicts in the Rodney King beating trial were given. They were not guilty. In spite of the video. In spite of the testimony of the officer who wrote the book on the use of force. The officers who beat Rodney King were found not guilty. The only thing I can say is that the prosecution did not know what it was doing. The trial was fair, but the officers were guilty. I know that sounds contradictory, but there was nothing fishy about the trial except maybe the change of venue from Los Angeles to Simi Valley. But the video speaks for itself. There is no explanation those officers can give for their actions. They used excessive force without reason.

So then the trouble began...

Since my telephone was disconnected, I have had to go to pay phones to call Kim. So today, like other days...

They are stopping cars, pulling people out, and beating them.

...I went to a pay phone (note: I think this was at a store somewhere on Oxnard, perhaps Woodman and Oxnard?) to call her. While I was talking to her, a black man, about my age, yelled at me, “Homeboy, get off the phone.” He started yelling things at me then he hung up the phone. After that, he began pushing me, getting in my face, and threatening to beat the hell out of me. He was yelling racial slurs at me among other things. He clearly wanted me to start something. But I only argued with him, calling him a racist. I also said that he was acting like a member of the KKK. One of his friends across the street was throwing rocks at me. But they left after 10 minutes without any violence. But they wanted an excuse, I just did not give it to them (note: this event was occurring at the same time as the Reginald Denny beating in South Central Los Angeles).

All at the same time, the black people on the street would whisper to other complete strangers who were also black about something. I finally heard one of them mention some plans for some gathering. The black man on the phone next to me was saying something similar (note: interestingly, I don’t remember the events of this paragraph, even after reading it again 20 years later).

But I would like to mention  that of all the black people around me during this 1/2 hour to 1 hour period, only two were doing anything wrong. Those two, of course, harrassed me.

When I got back to my room, I turned on the television set to find reports of violence breaking out in at least two places. Automatic gunfire (sporadic) everywhere. People pulling other people out of cars and beating them. We have seen at least five fires set. Looting. And it has just begun. This is all just 3 hours after the verdict was announced.

This is very sad. Everyone, not just black people, should be outraged by this verdict. But at the same time, nothing wrong has been done except what those officers did. There was no cover-up. No conspiracy. No attempt to hide the truth. I simply think it was a combination of poor prosecution mixed with the extended jury deliberations. Mix that with a bit of the underlying prejudice in one or two jurors. But there was no oppression or blatant racism.

But South Central Los Angeles has been a war zone. It did not just become one today.

The previous stuff was written at 7:00pm. It is now 8:30pm. Blocks of South Central Los Angeles are burning. Parker Center, Los Angeles Police Department headquarters, is being stormed by protesters. I have been hearing sirens and helicopters around here all night (note: keep in mind, again, that at this time I lived in Van Nuys, many worlds and miles away from South Central Los Angeles).

9:30 - A fleet of helicopters and police cars just went racing by here. I promised Kim and my mom that  I would lock the door and stay inside, so I do not know what is going on. Sirens sounding everywhere. Gunshots at Foothill station. Blocks and blocks of South Central are on fire.

11:30 Mayor Tom Bradly and Governor Pete Wilson have declared a state of emergency for the city of Los Angeles. Over 50 major fires have been reported all over the city. Riots all over South Central, riots in downtown, and in Pacoima. 2 people so far have died. A fire fighter is currently at the hospital being treated for a gunshot wound to the face. The National guard is being called in to be deployed in Los Angeles. A woman nurse in one hospital emergency room said that the activity is worse than any she experienced during her duty in the Gulf War.

Personally, I have been staying inside like I promised. Every few minutes, though, I hear either a helicopter or a bunch of police cars go by. But so far I have heard nothing dangerous going on around here.

It is important to note that all of this rioting is actually being done by very few people. Most of them seem to be people who are just using the verdict as an excuse to do violence. Everyone is angry, and in fact, most community leaders have been encouraging peaceful expression of this anger. But the gang members, criminals, and general thugs just figure that this gives them some sort of permission to go all out with their destructive behavior. None of this is an honest reaction of any section of the community to the verdict.

This is not Civil War.

The Lessons of Czar Nicholas II

Critics of the "Occupy Wall Street" (OWS) protests and similar actions around the country and around the world use the term "class warfare" to describe the objectives of the protesters. These critics use terms such as "socialist", "communist", and "anarchist" to dismiss the protesters and their concerns. Supporters of OWS spend too much time is spent arguing against these irrelevant points—it just doesn't matter whether their characterizations are true or false.

Let's then grant the following premise (which aren't actually true): OWS is nothing more than a bunch of communists intent on class warfare against the established power structures of the West. Does this premise mean their concerns should be readily dismissed?

Whether or not you want to grant those assumptions, communism is bad for many reasons not worth discussing in this blog. Any idea that you will address society's current ills by implementing Communism is, at best, misguided and, at worst, a recipe for the Soviet States of America. So, if we grant the absurd premise that the OWS protesters all are trying to overthrow American capitalism for Soviet communism, we're also granting that the protesters' solutions to our ills might be as bad or worse than the disease.

The Russian Revolution (the short version)

Nearly 100 years ago, Russia faced a real class war between real communists and a real ruling elite in the form of the feudalist Russian monarchy led by Czar Nicholas II. The world of early 20th century Russia was a political system based on a largely absolute monarchy with a feudalist economic system. Under feudalism, the "means of production" are controlled by land owners who make up a hereditary aristocracy. If you did not own land, you were at the mercy of your landlord for your economic well being. You essentially worked his land in exchange for protection, housing, and basic sustenance.

It's worth noting that Marx really didn't see communism as a replacement for feudalism. He believed societies needed to go through a progression from feudalism to capitalism to socialism and finally to communism. He also believed that these changes did not occur naturally—they required revolutions.

In other words, the status quo in Russia was a really bad thing with horrible injustices in place. Furthermore, that society did not provide any means for the disadvantaged to alter those injustices. A number of groups nevertheless attempted to make things better, including the Bolsheviks* (aka the Communists). The Bolsheviks were governed by an ideology based on the writings of Karl Marx—Communism. Communism sounds like a great idea in theory. It is an economic system that distributes goods and services based on need. Who wouldn't want a utopia in which everyone gets what they need?

Well, I don't. But that's beside the point and an argument for another time. The point is that Marx painted a very compelling picture to a people abused by a corrupt and unfair economic and political reality. Regardless of how silly or dangerous that picture was, it didn't change the reality that the people of Russia were being harmed daily by an unjust system.

Would anyone today seriously defend feudalism because some of the people protesting it were misguided in the solace they sought from communism?

Even if you would, there's no denying they were seriously pissed off and the result was the Soviet Union.

Having the Wrong Solution Doesn't Mean There's No Problem

We can learn two lessons from Czar Nicholas II and the Russian Revolution:

1. Because the people who see a problem have the wrong answer to a problem doesn't imply that there's no problem.
2. If the people capable of providing a just answer don't provide one, then the people with the wrong answers will ultimately force those wrong answers on everyone else.

The second lesson is much more dire than the first. Russia suffered through 70 years of authoritarian communist rule because the people who solved the problems of czarist feudalism were the Bolsheviks.

The voices of OWS are growing louder because there is a real problem. We've created false democracy in which political speech is equated with wealth and corporations are treated as persons. The result of this situation is the appearance of democracy when in reality only corporations and the people who govern them have any voice in how we are governed. The way Wall Street has behaved since the de-regulation of the late 90's has helped it do serious damage to the world economy and the companies that make up Wall Street have been immunized from those with political power from the capitalist forces that have traditionally make the US economy such a significant success.

The United States is no longer a capitalist democracy. It's a corporatist oligarchy with shades of democracy.

Some of the loudest people among the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd have the wrong solutions to this unsustainable situation. Some of them, however, might have the right answers. Ignoring all of them and pretending they are all Bolsheviks only increases the chances of real class conflict and, perhaps, real class warfare.

A Proposed Solution

I have a simple proposal for a solution that should address the valid objectives of the various OWS interests in the United States while not damage the fundamental values of our capitalist democracy. It's a Constitutional amendment that restructures the way campaigns are financed in the USA.

When you listen to the different voices of OWS, one theme emerges: People are tired of a nation in which wealth determines political voice. When spending money is considered free speech, those with more money will always have more speech. When corporations are considered persons, the considerations of large businesses will always outweigh the concerns of the small business or the individual. Let's end the idea of money as speech and corporate personhood through a Constitutional amendment that restructures the financing of political campaigns.

That means the public financing of all campaigns and elections. All candidates of significance should have equal amounts to spend on elections for public office. All entities with licenses to broadcast over public airwaves (radio, television) must be required to grant candidates equal time to make their case for election. Congress could be allowed to define what "candidates of significance" means, but it should be sufficiently lower to allow for multi-party elections.

Perhaps something like (I am not a lawyer, so this is obviously not bullet-proof legal wording):

The Campaign Finance Reform Amendment

1. Public funding. Elections for public office shall be funded entirely through public funds with the level of such funding determined from time-to-time by actions of Congress for federal elections and the States for state and local elections. All candidates of significance for public office shall have access to equal funds where "candidates of significance" may be determined by acts of Congress and the States. Definitions of "candidates of significance" must include at least three candidates for any office unless there are fewer than three candidates running for the office in question.

2. Independent groups. Congress may establish laws allowing for private citizens to form political groups that may act independent of candidates, but funding for those political groups must come from individuals and not many other kind of entity. Any monies in excess of $100 to a political group must be made public.

3. Use of public airwaves. All entities granted specific licenses over public airwaves must provide access to at least 5% of their total airtime to candidates free of cost in a manner equal in quality and quantity.

* Fun fact: The term Bolshevik comes from the Russian word for majority (the 99%?).

 

Economics, Not Ideology

The battle cry of the Tea Party and so-called "fiscal conservatives" is "Households balance their budgets, why can't the federal government?" It's a nice slogan designed to support a strong anti-government ideology, but it has no basis in economics.

Let's do a simple thought experiment.

Imagine a government with a $100B/year revenues from various taxes and spending appropriations of $100B/year to match. This is a government with a balanced budget. The spending equals the revenues and no debt is created. In addition, no free cash is created.

The problem with this scenario is the nature of the revenues. The revenues are directly dependent on the overall health of the macro economy. If the economy grows, revenues grow and we get excess cash (surplus). If the economy shrinks, revenues drop and we either a) fail to pay the bills for our appropriations or b) borrow money to cover the shortfall (deficit).

Obviously, with a growing economy, this isn't so bad. We have a surplus and don't have all of these discussions about deficits and bond ratings. With a legislated balanced budget, we either give that money back to the tax payers or increase spending (or, possibly, simply make an appropriations for a "rain day" fund).

The problem is the shrinking economy. In a shrinking economy, you have a private sector that is pulling back from investing in growth to a more defensive strategy oriented around cutting costs and gaining efficiencies. Companies stop cutting costs when the economy hits rock-bottom and they are operating at maximum efficiency. They begin hiring again when they see predictability in the economy and feel they safely can begin investing in growth.

When the government cuts spending to match lost tax revenues, it does two things:

1. It creates greater recessionary pressure on the economy because government spending is part of the economy. When you remove that spending, you by definition shrink the economy.
2. It adds to economic uncertainty. Under this scenario, forcing a balance budget means that government spending is no longer a fixed, predictable part of the economy. It instead becomes another downward trending point of uncertainty.

When government cuts spending (or raises taxes) during a weak economy, it takes money out of the economy and creates economic uncertainty. It makes the problem worse.

To be fair, running a deficit doesn't come without cost. Every dollar the government borrows today is a potential tax increase tomorrow of $1 plus interest. Let's continue the thought experiment.

Our $100B tax base drops to $75B in the recession. It lasts one year, and then we recover to normal levels. Our spending is now $100B plus debt service on the $25B from the recession. We have to raise taxes at this point to get the money for debt service or hope the economy grows to match.

In short, it's just not as simple as "balance the budget". Running a deficit is bad for long-term economic growth. Cutting spending and raising taxes address the deficit, but they are bad for short-term economic growth. Increasing spending and cutting taxes are good for short-term economic growth, but they create a deficit.

The narrow-minded focus on the deficit as the problem facing the US is causing us to ignore the real problem: jobs. The reason this recovery is so weak is because companies just aren't hiring right now. They aren't hiring because there's so much uncertainty from the government right now. And the uncertainty from the government is almost entirely a result of the bickering in Washington right now because no one really knows what way Washington is going to go on August 2 and even beyond.

Policy certainty is what we need from Washington right now, not balanced budgets or spending programs or tax cuts or tax increases or spending cuts.

Spending as a Stimulus

It's very hard for conservatives to consider the possibility that government spending can stimulate the economy. Any Economics 101 text will illustrate that spending pushes the economy forward no matter who does the spending. The reason we debate tax cuts versus spending is not because one is inherently better than the other (if that were true, we should either stop taxing completely or let government do all spending), but instead because of the long-term impact of the spending versus the long-term impact of the tax cuts on a case-by-case basis.

If you gave each member of Congress $1B to go to their local casino and put it all on a single hand of blackjack, that would stimulate the economy. The problem with that approach is that we likely would not see much of an impact beyond the initial spend—it would be close to pure consumption. Similarly, we could give a 10% tax cut to every person in the country, but if all anyone is going to do is save that money, it will be completely wasted. 

All spending is not equal. When you spend money building a new transportation that enables workers from an area with excess capacity to an area requiring labor, you do a lot more for the economy than if you were to spend that money studying cow farts. When you drive tax cuts to small businesses who tend to re-invest excess cash as opposed to big companies who tend to pocket that cash, you do a lot more for the economy.

When comparing a tax cut versus a spending increase, you need to look at the big picture impact of the tax cut versus the spending increase. 

The best way to judge the impact of spending is on the macro-economic impact. Is the thing being spent on something that has limited or negative ROI for an individual business yet has a significant impact across society? Any program fitting this description is a good program for government to spend money on (and thus tax the populace OR borrow money).

The best way to judge the impact of a tax cut is to understand what the beneficiaries of a tax cut are likely to do with the money. If the tax cut is likely to go directly into investment vehicles, it's a good candidate for a targeted tax cut. To pay for a tax cut, you either need to cut spending OR borrow money.

The worst time to increase taxes or cut spending is during an economic downturn. During a recovery period, cutting taxes tends to be most effective in fueling a recovery because the recipients tend to be most interested in investing their windfalls. On the other hand, spending is much more effective in the middle of a pronounced downturn since individuals and businesses are shy about investing any excess cash during a downturn.

In fact, the current economic crisis is a perfect example of why tax cuts don't help as much during an economic downturn. There is plenty of capital to loan and invest in the market, but no one is doing it. There is too much fear and it is impacting investment. If we give a 10% tax cut right now to anyone, they will almost certainly pocket that savings. If, on the other hand, we spend $500M on a roads project, that will create a demand for capital from construction which will free up investment from banks and inject money into businesses serving the project and create jobs. That will in turn create confidence in the market and make it possible for capital to flow more freely.

For the long-term, hopefully the roads project is on a road we actually need and that will fuel long-term economic growth. Even if it is on a "Bridge to Nowhere", however, it will create a short-term stimulus that can hopefully create enough market confidence to free up capital and enable the free market to do its job.

The impact on the current debate on the stimulus plan is simply this: under the current circumstances, all else being equal, $1 in government spending will have a greater short-term economic impact than $1 in tax cuts. If spent on the right things, those spending increases should also have a greater long-term economic impact. Furthermore, the best place to cut taxes right now is on small and medium-sized businesses who are likely to re-invest whatever the economic circumstances. The closest thing we have to this mix is the Senate bill. It's not perfect. It has a lot of "sending Congressmen to the casino" crap in it, but it also has a lot of critical infrastructure spending in it. Under the current circumstances, almost anything is better than nothing.

Reign in the House Democrats

We all know that Republicans don't get the concept that you need to spend money on infrastructure and that spending facilitates economic growth.

What we have learned in the past two weeks is just how incompetent Democrats in the House are. I have always felt that Nancy Pelosi is the worst House speaker of my lifetime. Both in her failure to exercise the rights of Congress as an equal branch of government when she led the opposition party and now in her petty attempts to further liberal pet projects under the guise of a stimulus bill now that she is leading the majority party.

In the big picture, I think it's time for Democrats to kick her out of a leadership role. For today, however, it's time for the House Democrats to take their leadership from the Senate and pass the Senate bill as is. The objective right now is to kick into gear programs that will increase economic growth in the short term (now through 24 months), not to take care of all the problems we have in a single bill.

Let's look at the education component that has been removed from the Senate bill. House Democrats are all up in arms about this. If we were talking about an education bill, I would be upset. We're not. We're talking about a stimulus bill. Education is one of the most important things we can spend money on, and it's long-term ROI is unmatchable by any other spending or tax cut.

But it is very long-term. The only reason you try to force it into an economic stimulus plan is because the specific education spending you are proposing is questionable and cannot withstand scrutiny in an education bill. I fear that's what House Democrats are doing with many of these non-stimulus items.