Jay Michelson in The Daily Beast for November 30th:

Dear Evangelicals: You’re Being Had
Why are you trying to solve a cultural problem with a political solution? Because the Republican Party is using you.
Dear Conservative Evangelicals,

I drive a Prius, enjoy Vanilla lattes, and am married to a man. I know it’s unlikely for me to be writing you this letter, and even more unlikely for you to read it.

But unlike most of my Obama-loving, liberal friends, I am no longer afraid of you. It’s clear to me that “your side” is losing the battle for public opinion, and I know that many of you agree with that assessment.

So why am I writing you this letter? Because, also unlike my liberal friends, I’m actually on your side, in some ways. I’m an ordained rabbi, and someone deeply concerned with the vulgarization and sexualization of our society. You and I disagree about the solution to this problem, of course, but we agree that there is a problem.

The trouble is, you’re trying to solve cultural problems with political solutions—because politicians have convinced you to do so. I am referring here to establishment Republicans, which for 150 years have consistently been the party of the rich and ungenerous.

In the first half of the twentieth century, most Christians distrusted this party, controlled as it was by “urban bankers” and others opposed to the Jeffersonian values of rural America. But in the wake of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the switch began—and by Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, it was complete. Republicans catered to conservative social attitudes on racial integration, and eventually moved rightward on issues like abortion and feminism, too, although you know as well as I do that they never really believed in them. They just realized that they could gain power by uniting two very different groups: the same moneyed elites as always, and you.

Now, let’s see who has won, and who has lost, in the ensuing 34 years.

You’re trying to solve cultural problems with political solutions—because politicians have convinced you to do so.
It’s clear that the rich—call them the 1 percent if you like, but I prefer to think of them as the moneylenders whom Jesus threw out of the Temple—have prospered enormously. In 1983, the wealthiest 1 percent were 131 times richer than the average American. In 2009, they were 225 times richer. In 2012, the top 20 percent made $13.5 trillion in income; the entire bottom 80% made $1 trillion.

These are disparities not seen since before the Great Depression. Whether for better or for worse, the ultra-rich have done extremely well in the 30 years you’ve allied with them.

How have you done, in the same period? Not well at all. Not only is gay marriage now the law for over two-thirds of Americans while the value of marriage in general has been declining for decades; not only are television, film, music, and video games more vulgar than we could have imagined in 1980; but more Americans are declaring themselves “Nones,” that is, people of no religious affiliation, than ever before in our history. Sure, some churches are expanding, but overall, your way of life is in steep decline. In short, you are losing horribly.

So, who is using whom here? Have the rich Republicans been good for you, or have you been good to them?

I look at the alliance you’ve forged with these people, and I don’t understand why you’re in it. Their agenda keeps winning, and yours keeps losing.

Moreover—and I don’t want to speak out of turn here—their agenda is even eating away at yours. What happened to the Christian concern to “love the least of these,” the most vulnerable, the most destitute? In my opinion, supply-side Republicans have convinced many Christians not merely that the welfare state is a bad idea, but that generosity itself is a vice, that public assistance equals dependence, and that giving the wealthy even more breaks is the way for benefits to “trickle down” to the rest of us.


That theory, by the way, has never been proven. When it’s been put into practice, it’s only made the ultra-rich richer. It’s done nothing for the middle class, the working class, and the poor. And its mean-hearted message, in my opinion, has corrupted the social gospel. Of course, prosperity is a good thing. But our current moment isn’t one of prosperity—it’s of inequality on the scale of ancient Rome.

Now, I’m not saying that you should jump on board with the Democrats’ agenda either. I’m saying that this Republican claim that you can build a Christian nation through politics is bogus, and only serves their goals.

You’re fighting the wrong fight. You should be making your case in culture, not in Congress. Look around. Atheism is highest in Europe, where there are established churches involved in the political process. But according to most historians, America is the most religious country in the Western world precisely because of the separation of church and state.

That “wall of separation” that liberals like to talk about? The original metaphor was: erect a wall to keep the garden of the church free from the wilderness of politics. The more you try to force your beliefs on others, the more people dislike you.

Of course, there are now multi-billion-dollar organizations dedicated to Christian politics. But how effective have they been? What has all that money bought?

I’ve worked in the LGBT movement for 15 years. At first, we, too, tried a political approach, talking about equal rights, civil rights, and so on. But the movement’s PR people found these messages weren’t working. So, in the 2000s, we shifted. We worked in the cultural arena instead, with pioneers like Ellen and Will & Grace. We went into churches and synagogues, testifying about our lives and our families. We changed people’s hearts, not their laws.

We also found messengers who could communicate the truth of our lives. Sure, there are radicals in the LGBT community who really are opposed to mainstream values—and some of them are my friends! But there are also moderates, even conservatives. The LGBT movement looked for places where we could find common ground, and focused there.

But because the public face of Christianity is now made up of the political operatives who can shout the loudest, your “wingnuts” are in center stage. I know that most Christians are not bigots or homophobes. I read the data, and I have Christian friends. But you have to admit: you’re putting your worst feet forward. Many of your spokespeople are loud and mean, because they can turn out the votes.

This all feeds into that devil’s bargain with the Republican Party. They stir you up about social issues in order to get you to the polls, and then they don’t really do anything about them. Because, in fact, they can’t. These are cultural questions, not political ones, and they have to be solved in the cultural arena.

To be clear, I’m not alleging any vast, right wing conspiracy to hoodwink Christians into voting Republican. I know that many of your values do, indeed, align with Republican policies.

But from the outside, from my side of the aisle, the situation seems very clear. The Republican rich are doing very well, and you’re losing badly. There’s only one conclusion I can draw from that: you’re being had.

**Wall Street Journal**



California Budget Increases Spending as State Enjoys a Surplus

Gov. Brown Urges Fiscal Restraint While Proposing More Funds for Schools, Debt Repayment

By
Alejandro Lazo


Jan. 9, 2014 2:46 p.m. ET

SACRAMENTO, Calif.—A resurgent stock market and a voter-approved tax increase has given California a windfall of several billion dollars, resulting in a rapid turnaround from the state's massive budget gaps of recent years.

On Thursday, Gov. Jerry Brown called the improvement in the state's fiscal house "good news," and he proposed spending an additional $10 billion annually for California's schools. But anticipating calls for further increased spending and preparing for a likely re-election bid, he also urged fiscal restraint as he officially proposed a $154.9 billion budget.

"By no means are we out of the wilderness, we have serious issues before us in terms of long-term liabilities, debts, and we must be very prudent in the way we spend public funds," Mr. Brown said. However, "after years of drought, and cutbacks and pink slips for the teachers, we are finally able to provide a substantial amount of new money for all the schools of California."

The document sets up roughly six months of negotiations with a Democratic-controlled legislature that will likely face pressure to increase spending and restore some of the big cuts to social services the state has experienced in recent years. A budget must be approved by June 15 so it can be enacted by July 1.

Mr. Brown was forced to move his budget announcement up a day after the document was leaked to the media Wednesday. He hastily rescheduled a trio of news conferences set to take place here and in Los Angeles and San Diego.

The document opens with a letter to the legislature in which he warns that the state's surplus—estimated at being roughly $4.7 billion by June 30 by the state's Legislative Analyst's Office—is modest, given the state's large pension liabilities, bond costs and other expenses.

Mr. Brown's proposed budget increases kindergarten through 12th grade public education spending by $10 billion, sends new money to colleges and universities, and allocates money to expand health-care coverage to millions.

The plan contains a warning about the state's boom-and-bust budget history, saying it is "riddled" with permanent spending increases made during times of temporary revenue spikes, while now seeking to rebuild the state's finances. Notably, it proposes using the state's surplus to make the first deposit since 2007 into the state's "rainy day fund."

Mr. Brown also seeks to pay money owed to state schools but deferred during the years of crisis as well as pay back bonds sold to balance the budget 10 years ago, and make some infrastructure improvements. In addition, the budget endorses a plan to strengthen the rainy day fund through constitutional amendment.

Despite sounding the notes of fiscal restraint, Mr. Brown's budget proposal is 6.3% larger than last year's. It also reflects the governor's commitment to a troubled $68 billion plan to bring high-speed rail to the state by proposing to help finance the project using $250 million in proceeds from selling cap-and-trade pollution credits.

In introducing his budget proposal Thursday, the Democratic governor said that beginning to pay down California's massive "wall of debt" must be a priority. His proposal for the 2014-15 fiscal year dedicates $11 billion to paying down debts and liabilities, including $6 billion in payments to schools that had been deferred.

He also sets aside $1.6 billion for the rainy day fund to protect against future downturns, saying "wisdom and prudence should be the order of the day."

The record $106.8 billion general fund exceeds the spending level in place just before the recession by more than $3 billion, and is a nearly 9% increase over spending in the current fiscal year.


Write to Alejandro Lazo at alejandro.lazo@wsj.com

Jay Michelson in The Daily Beast for November 30th:

Dear Evangelicals: You’re Being Had
Why are you trying to solve a cultural problem with a political solution? Because the Republican Party is using you.
Dear Conservative Evangelicals,

I drive a Prius, enjoy Vanilla lattes, and am married to a man. I know it’s unlikely for me to be writing you this letter, and even more unlikely for you to read it.

But unlike most of my Obama-loving, liberal friends, I am no longer afraid of you. It’s clear to me that “your side” is losing the battle for public opinion, and I know that many of you agree with that assessment.

So why am I writing you this letter? Because, also unlike my liberal friends, I’m actually on your side, in some ways. I’m an ordained rabbi, and someone deeply concerned with the vulgarization and sexualization of our society. You and I disagree about the solution to this problem, of course, but we agree that there is a problem.

The trouble is, you’re trying to solve cultural problems with political solutions—because politicians have convinced you to do so. I am referring here to establishment Republicans, which for 150 years have consistently been the party of the rich and ungenerous.

In the first half of the twentieth century, most Christians distrusted this party, controlled as it was by “urban bankers” and others opposed to the Jeffersonian values of rural America. But in the wake of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the switch began—and by Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, it was complete. Republicans catered to conservative social attitudes on racial integration, and eventually moved rightward on issues like abortion and feminism, too, although you know as well as I do that they never really believed in them. They just realized that they could gain power by uniting two very different groups: the same moneyed elites as always, and you.

Now, let’s see who has won, and who has lost, in the ensuing 34 years.

You’re trying to solve cultural problems with political solutions—because politicians have convinced you to do so.
It’s clear that the rich—call them the 1 percent if you like, but I prefer to think of them as the moneylenders whom Jesus threw out of the Temple—have prospered enormously. In 1983, the wealthiest 1 percent were 131 times richer than the average American. In 2009, they were 225 times richer. In 2012, the top 20 percent made $13.5 trillion in income; the entire bottom 80% made $1 trillion.

These are disparities not seen since before the Great Depression. Whether for better or for worse, the ultra-rich have done extremely well in the 30 years you’ve allied with them.

How have you done, in the same period? Not well at all. Not only is gay marriage now the law for over two-thirds of Americans while the value of marriage in general has been declining for decades; not only are television, film, music, and video games more vulgar than we could have imagined in 1980; but more Americans are declaring themselves “Nones,” that is, people of no religious affiliation, than ever before in our history. Sure, some churches are expanding, but overall, your way of life is in steep decline. In short, you are losing horribly.

So, who is using whom here? Have the rich Republicans been good for you, or have you been good to them?

I look at the alliance you’ve forged with these people, and I don’t understand why you’re in it. Their agenda keeps winning, and yours keeps losing.

Moreover—and I don’t want to speak out of turn here—their agenda is even eating away at yours. What happened to the Christian concern to “love the least of these,” the most vulnerable, the most destitute? In my opinion, supply-side Republicans have convinced many Christians not merely that the welfare state is a bad idea, but that generosity itself is a vice, that public assistance equals dependence, and that giving the wealthy even more breaks is the way for benefits to “trickle down” to the rest of us.


That theory, by the way, has never been proven. When it’s been put into practice, it’s only made the ultra-rich richer. It’s done nothing for the middle class, the working class, and the poor. And its mean-hearted message, in my opinion, has corrupted the social gospel. Of course, prosperity is a good thing. But our current moment isn’t one of prosperity—it’s of inequality on the scale of ancient Rome.

Now, I’m not saying that you should jump on board with the Democrats’ agenda either. I’m saying that this Republican claim that you can build a Christian nation through politics is bogus, and only serves their goals.

You’re fighting the wrong fight. You should be making your case in culture, not in Congress. Look around. Atheism is highest in Europe, where there are established churches involved in the political process. But according to most historians, America is the most religious country in the Western world precisely because of the separation of church and state.

That “wall of separation” that liberals like to talk about? The original metaphor was: erect a wall to keep the garden of the church free from the wilderness of politics. The more you try to force your beliefs on others, the more people dislike you.

Of course, there are now multi-billion-dollar organizations dedicated to Christian politics. But how effective have they been? What has all that money bought?

I’ve worked in the LGBT movement for 15 years. At first, we, too, tried a political approach, talking about equal rights, civil rights, and so on. But the movement’s PR people found these messages weren’t working. So, in the 2000s, we shifted. We worked in the cultural arena instead, with pioneers like Ellen and Will & Grace. We went into churches and synagogues, testifying about our lives and our families. We changed people’s hearts, not their laws.

We also found messengers who could communicate the truth of our lives. Sure, there are radicals in the LGBT community who really are opposed to mainstream values—and some of them are my friends! But there are also moderates, even conservatives. The LGBT movement looked for places where we could find common ground, and focused there.

But because the public face of Christianity is now made up of the political operatives who can shout the loudest, your “wingnuts” are in center stage. I know that most Christians are not bigots or homophobes. I read the data, and I have Christian friends. But you have to admit: you’re putting your worst feet forward. Many of your spokespeople are loud and mean, because they can turn out the votes.

This all feeds into that devil’s bargain with the Republican Party. They stir you up about social issues in order to get you to the polls, and then they don’t really do anything about them. Because, in fact, they can’t. These are cultural questions, not political ones, and they have to be solved in the cultural arena.

To be clear, I’m not alleging any vast, right wing conspiracy to hoodwink Christians into voting Republican. I know that many of your values do, indeed, align with Republican policies.

But from the outside, from my side of the aisle, the situation seems very clear. The Republican rich are doing very well, and you’re losing badly. There’s only one conclusion I can draw from that: you’re being had.

I can take EVERYTHING you said and say the very same thing about Democrat Leadership...... and how your being taken and used by them....

Think the GOP has been the party to give the rich all there tax breaks? Smoke on this.. Where is the tax code written? In the House Ways & Means Committee. Which party has had control of the House Ways & Means Committee the most time? Well since 1955 the Dems has had control for 44 years, 76% of the time...GOP has had control for 14 years, 24% of the time... So if any party has been the party of the rich...Its been the DEMs...and that are the facts...

Those “Evil, Rich People” that Democrats are always wailing about are actually – Democrats.

While I don’t agree in referring to rich people as “Evil”, Democrats are often making such accusations. But what most people don’t realize is that the Top 3 “richest” people in the country are all Democrats. This list includes: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett & Larry Ellison are all Democrats. Together, they are worth $126 Billion Dollars.

An analysis of the Top 20 Richest People in America (from Forbes Top 100) reveals that a full 60% are actually Democrats. Furthermore, if you look at it from a “family” point of view and not as individuals, that ratio widens even further to: 25% Republican / 75% Democrat.

(The purpose of this analysis is not who makes the most money, but where they contribute / by party affiliation. Obviously, people from the same family would tend to contribute to the same party.)

Analyzing the data takes us even further. Not only are there more Democrats in the Top 20 list, but those Democrats are a lot more stingy with their money when it comes to campaign contributions. Republicans coughed up $5.2 million while Democrats squirted out only $2.1 Million. These statistics would indicate that the more you have, the less you give to your political party.

Contributions paid to special interest groups are a little harder to track. But we have no reason not to assume that the money these Top 1% of the population contribute to Special Interest groups wouldn’t match (or at least closely match) those of their chosen political affiliation. When you add in the money contributed to these groups, you end up with Republican Contributions at $10 million while Democrats contributed only $6 million. Again, it appears that the Democrats are a bit more stingy with their money.

Lest we not forget, Democrats outweigh Republicans. Not only in terms of the number of uber-millionaires, but also with their net worth. In this Top 20 group, Democrats have a combined net worth of $263.1 billion dollars while the Republicans have a combined net worth of only $143.9 billion dollars – almost half that of Democrats.

So the next time you hear some Liberal try the “Evil Rich Republican” rhetoric, remind them and everyone around you that it is the Democrats who are those “Evil Rich People”, not the Republicans. Then stand back and watch their head spin.

I can take EVERYTHING you said and say the very same thing about Democrat Leadership...... and how your being taken and used by them....

Think the GOP has been the party to give the rich all there tax breaks? Smoke on this.. Where is the tax code written? In the House Ways & Means Committee. Which party has had control of the House Ways & Means Committee the most time? Well since 1955 the Dems has had control for 44 years, 76% of the time...GOP has had control for 14 years, 24% of the time... So if any party has been the party of the rich...Its been the DEMs...and that are the facts...

Those “Evil, Rich People” that Democrats are always wailing about are actually – Democrats.

While I don’t agree in referring to rich people as “Evil”, Democrats are often making such accusations. But what most people don’t realize is that the Top 3 “richest” people in the country are all Democrats. This list includes: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett & Larry Ellison are all Democrats. Together, they are worth $126 Billion Dollars.

An analysis of the Top 20 Richest People in America (from Forbes Top 100) reveals that a full 60% are actually Democrats. Furthermore, if you look at it from a “family” point of view and not as individuals, that ratio widens even further to: 25% Republican / 75% Democrat.

(The purpose of this analysis is not who makes the most money, but where they contribute / by party affiliation. Obviously, people from the same family would tend to contribute to the same party.)

Analyzing the data takes us even further. Not only are there more Democrats in the Top 20 list, but those Democrats are a lot more stingy with their money when it comes to campaign contributions. Republicans coughed up $5.2 million while Democrats squirted out only $2.1 Million. These statistics would indicate that the more you have, the less you give to your political party.

Contributions paid to special interest groups are a little harder to track. But we have no reason not to assume that the money these Top 1% of the population contribute to Special Interest groups wouldn’t match (or at least closely match) those of their chosen political affiliation. When you add in the money contributed to these groups, you end up with Republican Contributions at $10 million while Democrats contributed only $6 million. Again, it appears that the Democrats are a bit more stingy with their money.

Lest we not forget, Democrats outweigh Republicans. Not only in terms of the number of uber-millionaires, but also with their net worth. In this Top 20 group, Democrats have a combined net worth of $263.1 billion dollars while the Republicans have a combined net worth of only $143.9 billion dollars – almost half that of Democrats.

So the next time you hear some Liberal try the “Evil Rich Republican” rhetoric, remind them and everyone around you that it is the Democrats who are those “Evil Rich People”, not the Republicans. Then stand back and watch their head spin.

**Wall Street Journal**



California Budget Increases Spending as State Enjoys a Surplus

Gov. Brown Urges Fiscal Restraint While Proposing More Funds for Schools, Debt Repayment

By
Alejandro Lazo


Jan. 9, 2014 2:46 p.m. ET

SACRAMENTO, Calif.—A resurgent stock market and a voter-approved tax increase has given California a windfall of several billion dollars, resulting in a rapid turnaround from the state's massive budget gaps of recent years.

On Thursday, Gov. Jerry Brown called the improvement in the state's fiscal house "good news," and he proposed spending an additional $10 billion annually for California's schools. But anticipating calls for further increased spending and preparing for a likely re-election bid, he also urged fiscal restraint as he officially proposed a $154.9 billion budget.

"By no means are we out of the wilderness, we have serious issues before us in terms of long-term liabilities, debts, and we must be very prudent in the way we spend public funds," Mr. Brown said. However, "after years of drought, and cutbacks and pink slips for the teachers, we are finally able to provide a substantial amount of new money for all the schools of California."

The document sets up roughly six months of negotiations with a Democratic-controlled legislature that will likely face pressure to increase spending and restore some of the big cuts to social services the state has experienced in recent years. A budget must be approved by June 15 so it can be enacted by July 1.

Mr. Brown was forced to move his budget announcement up a day after the document was leaked to the media Wednesday. He hastily rescheduled a trio of news conferences set to take place here and in Los Angeles and San Diego.

The document opens with a letter to the legislature in which he warns that the state's surplus—estimated at being roughly $4.7 billion by June 30 by the state's Legislative Analyst's Office—is modest, given the state's large pension liabilities, bond costs and other expenses.

Mr. Brown's proposed budget increases kindergarten through 12th grade public education spending by $10 billion, sends new money to colleges and universities, and allocates money to expand health-care coverage to millions.

The plan contains a warning about the state's boom-and-bust budget history, saying it is "riddled" with permanent spending increases made during times of temporary revenue spikes, while now seeking to rebuild the state's finances. Notably, it proposes using the state's surplus to make the first deposit since 2007 into the state's "rainy day fund."

Mr. Brown also seeks to pay money owed to state schools but deferred during the years of crisis as well as pay back bonds sold to balance the budget 10 years ago, and make some infrastructure improvements. In addition, the budget endorses a plan to strengthen the rainy day fund through constitutional amendment.

Despite sounding the notes of fiscal restraint, Mr. Brown's budget proposal is 6.3% larger than last year's. It also reflects the governor's commitment to a troubled $68 billion plan to bring high-speed rail to the state by proposing to help finance the project using $250 million in proceeds from selling cap-and-trade pollution credits.

In introducing his budget proposal Thursday, the Democratic governor said that beginning to pay down California's massive "wall of debt" must be a priority. His proposal for the 2014-15 fiscal year dedicates $11 billion to paying down debts and liabilities, including $6 billion in payments to schools that had been deferred.

He also sets aside $1.6 billion for the rainy day fund to protect against future downturns, saying "wisdom and prudence should be the order of the day."

The record $106.8 billion general fund exceeds the spending level in place just before the recession by more than $3 billion, and is a nearly 9% increase over spending in the current fiscal year.


Write to Alejandro Lazo at alejandro.lazo@wsj.com