States don’t have to wait for stimulus payments

What with the Congress mulling over plans for stimulating the American economy, there is an even more critical role to be played by the states in delivering aid to those hardest hit by our current economic crisis. States are where the tires hit the road, and states can act much more efficiently and quickly to meet the specific demands of their citizens. Even after the states have taken action, Congress can support these actions with direct funding and augment the strained budgets the states face with declining tax revenues in our recessionary economy. I’ll use an example from Missouri. We have just elected a Democratic Governor after four years of a GOP Governor who spent his time giving tax breaks and favors to corporations and contributors and left the State of Missouri with a budget shortfall of over $300 million. We have a GOP lead legislature in both chambers of our bicameral legislature. So far, everyone has promised “bi-partisanship” and all are looking at ways to make up the differences in funding because Missouri, like all states, has to have a balanced budget. Regardless of responsibility for why revenues are down, the Governor apparently will have to cut the budget in the current fiscal year to make ends meet. I say apparently because of that pesky requirement we balance or budget each and every year. So how does a state government fully fund priorities when immediate cash revenues keep that from being done? Here’s how . . .

Continue ReadingStates don’t have to wait for stimulus payments

Eight ways to allow 3,000 people to die: a lesson in moral clarity

President Bush is going to send more than 20,000 more troops into Iraq and spend billions of more dollars to carry on a hideous war. Why?  To protect Americans from terrorists, he tells us.  Bush convinced Americans to invade Iraq by accusing Iraq of being responsible for the 9/11 attacks that killed 3,000 Americans.  This argument suggests that the deaths of 3,000 people is a horrible thing.

Whenever 3,000 people die, it is a horrible thing.  It might justify hundreds of billions of dollars, though certainly not the diversion of money from programs that save equal numbers of lives. 3,000 deaths justifies the deaths of more than 3,000 soldiers, we are told.  I don’t agree with this. The political party that argues that there are clear moral rules (the Republicans) isn’t convincing me.

Does it make a difference that 3,000 innocent Americans die on the same day rather than over the course of a year?  I wouldn’t think so.  A death is a death, in my opinion.  And 3,000 deaths are 3,000 deaths.

Therefore, shouldn’t the 16,000 murders that occur every year in the US require a response five times bigger than the invasion of Iraq?   That’s 3,000 every ten weeks.  Shouldn’t it require focused efforts to protect these victims?  Shouldn’t it require a revamping of our entire criminal justice system, especially our prison system, which so often trains criminals to be even more vicious, rather than preparing them for ready for release? Where is our war on criminal violence? …

Share

Continue ReadingEight ways to allow 3,000 people to die: a lesson in moral clarity