;)
Saturday
Aug172013
The Commentariat -- Aug. 18, 2013
Here's the post by Juan Cole, to which Kate M. refers in the Comments. Cole explains quite well what that military aid is all about. This was key for me: "It is US arms manufacturers like Lockheed-Martin and General Dynamics (and their employees) who would suffer if it were cut off." ...
... In another post, Cole states the obvious: "It seems to me that the preponderance of the evidence suggests that religiously based political movements are almost impossible to eradicate by force." CW: As I've said here before, it is impossible to force people to change their beliefs. Even if a repressive government strips you of all your rights, you still believe what you believe. (And don't bother telling me about forcing mind-altering drugs on the populace; this might work in individual cases, but on a mass scale, it would simply lead to more chaos.) The Egyptian military's brutality and Morsi's brazen tyranny simply reinforce tribalism. For democracy to gain a foothold in countries that lack a democratic tradition, it takes a Mandela. Or two. ...
Between a Rock & a Hard Place. Erik Eckholm of the New York Times: Under municipal "nuisance property" ordinances, "officials "can ... pressure landlords to [evict tenants] if the police have been called to a rental home three times within four months.... Over the last 25 years, in a trend still growing, hundreds of cities and towns across the country have adopted nuisance property or 'crime-free housing' ordinances. But the laws are sometimes forcing victims, especially women facing domestic violence, to choose between calling the police and holding on to their homes, according to legal aid groups and experts on housing and the poor. 'These laws threaten citizens' fundamental right to call on the police for help,' said Matthew Desmond, a sociologist at Harvard.... Legal experts say the laws can give tenants the lasting stain of an eviction record without due process."
MoDo is back in her element: "If Americans are worried about money in politics, there is no larger concern than the Clintons, who are cosseted in a world where rich people endlessly scratch the backs of rich people."
Paul Krugman: "... conservatism ... [is] all about the protection of traditional hierarchy."
Justin Sink of the Hill: Eric Fehrnstrom, "A top adviser to former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said Friday it was a mistake for the Republican National Committee (RNC) to ban NBC and CNN from hosting debates during the 2016 primaries, saying the unanimous vote would create 'bad optics.'" CW: Yo, Eric, "Bad optics" is when you compare your candidate's general election flip-flops to an Etch-a-Sketch. Oh, my aching eyeballs.
CW: Oops, I forgot the President's weekly address yesterday. Here's an ABC New story on it & here's the video:
Michelle Boorstein of the Washington Post: "Even as polls show Americans broadly oppose electioneering from the pulpit, a new report by a group of faith leaders working closely with Capitol Hill argues for ending the decades-old ban on explicit clergy endorsements. The report being given Wednesday to Sen. Charles E. Grassley -- the Iowa Republican whose office for years has been probing potential abuses by tax-exempt groups -- comes as the ban has become a culture-war flashpoint. More than 1,100 mostly conservative Christian pastors for the past few springs have been explicitly preaching politics -- they call the annual event 'Pulpit Freedom Sunday' p-- in an effort to lure the Internal Revenue Service into a court showdown. Meanwhile, groups that favor a strong church-state separation are going to court to demand that the IRS more aggressively enforce the ban that dates to 1954." Via Steve Benen. ...
... CW: The obvious way to deal with this & with "not-for-profit" political (and non-political) organizations is simply to subject them all to the same federal taxes the rest of us pay. Everybody -- pastor & Tea Party leader -- has a First Amendment right to express her opinions, but nobody has a First Amendment right to evade taxation. Those charitable organizations that actually do not make a profit will have zero tax liability. So what's the big deal? I get on my soapbox every day, but on April 15, I still have to pay my taxes; the Church of the Latter Day Rednecks should have to pony up, too.
Mark Oppenheimer of the New York Times on naming children after religious figures. CW: nobody mentions it, but after a court overturns a judge's ruling that changed a child's name from "Messiah" to "Martin," that kid is going to get older & his friends will call him "Mess."
Local News
In a tasteful editorial, the New York Post Editors endorse Scott Stringer for city comptroller. Title of the piece: "Vote Stringer and Give 'Client 9' the Hook." "The Post endorses Scott Stringer because in a race between an Upper West Side liberal and a hotheaded, hooker-chasing, office-abusing, self-promoting, lawbreaking, ego-obsessed 'steamroller' who still has trouble admitting he ever did anything wrong, it should be no contest."
Ryan Reilly of the Huffington Post: " A proposed amendment to Oklahoma's state constitution that would have prevented state courts from considering Sharia and international law was struck down by a federal judge on Thursday. Chief District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange of the Western District of Oklahoma, who issued a temporary restraining order preventing the law from taking effect after it passed in 2010, ruled Thursday that the amendment's references to Sharia, or Islamic law, violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. While Oklahoma officials argued the amendment could be enacted if the reference to Sharia was removed, Miles-LaGrange ruled that wasn't possible." Via Steve Benen.
News Ledes
AP: "As the U.S. renews its effort to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, it will soon begin reconsidering the fate of prisoners ... who a government task force decided were too dangerous to release but who can't be prosecuted, in some cases, because proceedings could reveal sensitive information."
... Washington Post: "Egyptian security forces on Saturday overran a Cairo mosque in which hundreds of supporters of ousted president Mohamed Morsi had barricaded themselves for nearly 24 hours after a day of gun battles in the heart of the capital. It was unclear by nightfall what had become of the protesters, who had been detained after security forces had escorted them from the scene. Egyptian state television declared that 'the crisis is over.' But Saturday brought demonstrations and clashes in several other cities across the country."
New York Times: "Federal authorities have opened a bribery investigation into whether JPMorgan Chase hired the children of powerful Chinese officials to help the bank win lucrative business in the booming nation, according to a confidential United States government document." CW: I'd be shocked, shocked to find out bribery was going on."
Share Article
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.
Reader Comments (8)
About Egypt. Granted I don’t pay much attention to what’s going on. Or to those who try to explain what’s going on. Having confessed my basic disinterest, it seems to me that it’s an endless bloody squabble between religious fanatics and military fascists. Makes it hard to chose up sides or give a shit what happens.
@James Singer
It is not much of a mystery to me about Egypt and the U.S. Whenever we are involved in Middle Eastern issues, we can know with certainty that Israel is behind us holding the "big stick."
Hear what Juan Cole has to say on Informed Consent:
..." It’s not about Democracy: Top Ten Reasons Washington is Reluctant to cut off Egypt Aid..."
Sad--but totally expectable. Ever has it been in my not yet faded memory.
Regarding removing the tax-exempt status of non-profit organizations, property taxes would become a tax liability for at least the religious and educational organizations.
Now, whether they should have ever had this exemption is a debatable point, but to impose property taxes now opens up multiple cans of worms. For instance, take the valuation of said property. Closed churches on the real estate market here are offered for a miniscule fraction of the replacement price. Where on that range should the value be set?
There are many more questions worthy of debate, and I fall on both sides of the self-interest line. Change on this front would be very difficult and I fear the valuation would fall to a subjective person or board. Given what the RWNJs are doing to something as straightforward as voting, I would probably get screwed twice!
Oops! I did not give you the correct link for Juan Cole in Informed Consent. What he has to say about the Israel connection in Egypt is worth reading.
http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/democracy-washington-reluctant.html?
@Nisky Guy: I take your point, but there is another consideration: the other property taxpayers in the community. It's true that churches & charitable institutions don't contribute to the population, so there are certain public services they don't directly "use" -- schools, social welfare, libraries, etc. Educational institutions are a horse of a different color. While colleges bring in business, they also bring public costs. If charitable institutions also own residential property, or house the indigent, as often they do, then they also are using public services like schools & social welfare programs. In any event, they do use roads, fire & police, etc.
That is, a church that doesn't pay property taxes is a burden on the community. The rest of us have to pay their share of property taxes.
In some states & communities, churches & charitable institutions are liable for property taxes for properties they own that are not part of church itself; in other communities, these institutions don't have to pay property taxes at all, giving them an unfair advantage on rents over private, taxpaying property owners.
In a large community, the impact on other individuals may not be too bad. But when I was on the town council of a small town in New Jersey, we were all fairly horrified that some quasi-church was contemplating building a large housing development which would not be subject to property tax. The group decided against it, to our great relief. But had they gone ahead, their development would have caused a tremendous burden on the rest of the town's taxpayers.
I am aware that some churches make significant, perhaps intangible, contributions to the community, so they "pay it back" in other ways. But many churches do little in the way of aiding the community. Frankly, I don't think I should have to bear the burden they impose on the community, even tho, inevitably, I do. I also don't see where I'm imposing on someone's religious freedom by insisting their house of worship pay its fair share.
In terms of the value of the property, the assessor should be able to figure that out. If a 3,000 sq. ft. house would sell for $500K, & the 3,000 sq. ft. church next door would sell for only $200K, the assessor should assess the properties accordingly. And yes, tax assessment is necessarily somewhat subjective. Every community has a means to appeal an assessment, & if the board fails to satisfy an appellant, he can always take the matter to court, whether he owns a church or a private residence.
Marie
Ms. Madison: Just curious as to how Israel is the villain in all this Egypt stuff.
Of the ten points Cole outlined, only two had anything to do with Israel, and one only tangentially. The joint Israeli-Egyptian aid of which Cole speaks is only a minuscule portion of the total American aid to Egypt, and would hardly be a reason for Israelis to intervene.
And while Israel asked the US government not to suspend aid to Egypt, they are hardly alone in that regard. The Saudis, among others. have asked exactly the same thing. As far as I know, no nation in the European Union has discontinued aid to Egypt, either. Are the Israelis driving their foreign policy, too?
Abusive comment removed.
I think CW has it right on the tax exemptions for non-profits issue, even in reference to any argument that property taxes, at least, really should be exempted. And, in reference to the latter, there is no reason why a church or other organization itself needs to actually own the property if it feels the burden of ownership is too high. Rather, it could seek to use a supporter's property for meetings, offices, etc.
Note, too, that if no property tax exemptions were allowed, the result would be, as CW noted, to lift the burden somewhat on the rest of the property owners. This would thus free up more money for donations to non-profits, while reducing resentment of non-profit privilege. In the end, it might actually be a win-win for non-profits to be subject to all normal taxation!
Next: should donations to non-profits ever be tax deductible; and is property taxation based on assessed value good policy?