Though news of the massive rally in North Carolina on February 8th ( organized by the HKonJ coalition, the folks who brought us last years ” Moral Mondays ” protests), barely registered a blip on the national media radar, it had a quite an impact on folks in Wisconsin’s Chippewa Valley.
After several core group meetings in the weeks prior to the February 8th rally, organizers in Eau Claire held their first Moral Monday public meeting on Monday, February 24th, in the basement of the Unitarian Universalist Church at 421 S Farwell St. Over 40 people attended the meeting led by Unitarian Universalist Reverend Julie Lepp and progressive community activist Eleanor Wolf. The predetermined theme of the meeting was poverty and how we can begin to work together to find solutions.
Attendees included local elected officials, heads of non-profits, faith community leaders, and low income people who’ve been adversely effected in recent years by budget cuts to various social safety net programs. After breaking into small group discussions attendees voted on what the priorities of the emerging coalition should be, and settled on three issues: raising the minimum wage, eliminating chronic homelessness, and Medicaid/Badgercare expansion in Wisconsin. The group also decided to send individual emails to both Rev. William Barber and Rev. Curtis Gatewood of the HKonJ coalition asking them to come to Eau Claire to speak. The excitement in the room was palpable.
I spoke with two single mothers after the meeting and they both told me that they had to struggle to keep from crying throughout the evening. They said they’d never heard so many people talking so openly about poverty as a moral issue, and they were surprised that so many people were willing to come together to try to do something about it.
The next meeting date was set for Monday, March 24th, and everyone in the room was strongly encouraged to bring at least one new person with them. The single mothers I spoke with assured me that they’d be coming back in March, and that they’d be bringing others with them.
As they say out in North Carolina, ” Forward together, not one step back! “
I’ll write to Rev Barber and Rev Gatewood too! Makes me so happy to hear about your work. I’m a single mom in NC involved with MM here. I know we can change the world. Best to you!
So glad to hear that folks are getting involved!
Those of us whom have been honored with advocating for a better life for all, it is truly gratifying to hear other states are taking up the mantel layed before us all.
Deep bows to you ALL!
If you wish to share pics, look me up on FB, and, I would love to create slideshows for y’all, as well!
Thank you for a great article. As a Moral Monday arrestee here in NC my thoughts for the success of your actions are with the people of Minnesota
Harvey,
Thanks for commenting; and this is Wisconsin!
Harvey, you are a true patriot. Thank you for your courageous civil disobedience.
While I share the goal of reducing poverty, I do wonder at what point the forcible taking of money from one group and giving it to another can continue to be described as moral.
Denis,
I agree with you completely. Taking our tax dollars and giving them to Wall Street mega-millionaires is profoundly immoral. Thanks for weighing in.
Steve, actually the subject matter is reducing poverty. If you read the article, you might notice that the proposed solutions would require tax money. Try to stay on subject. By the way, I agree with you on any subsidies to Wall Street.
Denis,
Raising the minimum wage would actually save taxpayers money. A lot of low wage workers are eligible for the social safety net programs that have been cut, like food stamps, heating assistance, etc. A raise in wages would come from the private sector and reduce public budgets.
The Housing First program in Utah is actually saving the state money, which is one of the main reasons the republicans out there went with it. They’re on track in Utah to eliminate chronic homelessness AND save the taxpayers money by 2015.
The Legislative Fiscal Bureau here in Wisconsin determined that accepting the federal money to expand Badgercare available under the Affordable Care Act would actually save taxpayers 120 million dollars in the 2013-2015 budget.
So I’m not sure where you get the idea that the proposed solutions would require tax money. We have experts and authorities who’ve outlined how these solutions would save taxpayer money.
It’s just a suggestion, but maybe you should know what you’re talking about before you hit the ” post comment ” button?
I want to thank the North Carolinians who’ve chimed in here and say that I’m super-impressed with what you’ve got going on out there, and I hope we can replicate it here. Thanks for the comments. Forward together, not one step back!
Steve,
The private sector must be hoarding loads of cash. Why not raise the min wage to $40 per hour and do away with social safety net programs altogether? I wish it weren’t so but as a business owner I can tell you that some people can add little of value to a business operation. Raise the minimum wage too high and what you will get is unemployment. That is hardly a tax neutral proposition.
Denis,
The private sector is hoarding loads of cash. Loads of it. And let me fill in for John Casper here.
What kind of business do you own?
How many employee do you have?
How much do you pay them an hour?
If you want to speak as a small business owner you should be prepared to be forthcoming with your answers to these questions. Otherwise you could be mistaken for a Libertarian ideologue spouting talking points, Denis.
Well this really shouldn’t be about me Steve. The issue I raised was whether the folks who want to take money from one and give it to another might just blush a bit when calling themselves moral. But I will play along as you change the subject. I own a retail store and I am not hoarding cash. I would love nothing more than to pay my employees $100k but the money just isn’t there. My decisions, unlike your attitude, are constrained by reality. I presently have two part time employees making 9 or 10 per. What is your point?
The folks taking the money presently, if you read the article, are the politicians whose policies are taking a higher proportion of tax money from those with the least actual money and disproportionately giving it, by reducing taxes further, to those people who already have the most money. I doubt the politicians who are getting campaign cash from the rich, to do the economic bidding of the rich, are ever blushing about anything (even when they get caught, John Doe and Son of John Doe).
The politicians elected, even if winning by only one vote, are supposed to represent the interests and needs of the entire citizenry, not just the majority that put them in office.
YOU brought up your situation as a business owner, were questioned on the subject and then claimed the situation YOU mentioned should have nothing to do with the discussion. Make up your mind.
I seriously doubt you’d love NOTHING more than to pay a low wage worker that you have now, over 5 times more than you presently are. Your specious example, seemingly invented to imply some kind of personal moral superiority in yourself, and your use of that unlikely premise to insult Steve’s attitude, first is disingenuous and petty. Second, it indicates to me you are not actually interested in having a discussion, but as Steve indicated earlier, you could be seen as someone here to merely push some libertarian talking points, i.e. YOUR political beliefs trumping any reality. Point being, to answer your summary question, the shoe seems to fit, wear it.
What is your point Denis? You’re the one who came here to comment. You think taxation is immoral? Is that the point you came here to make? No thoughts on people living in poverty, just that taxation is immoral?
You got it Steve! My point is that taxation can be immoral. We probably agree on that unless you have gone full commie. And we now know that communism doesn’t do much to help the poor. I think it is great that people want to help the poor and I would have no problem with people describing themselves as moral when they do so with their own money. When they want to use others people’s money, well, at that point I think they should at least think twice before congratulating themselves. There, that is my point. What is yours?
Denis, since you don’t understand capitalism, I’ll clue you in, the real “job creators” are consumers with money to spend.
Capitalism runs on sales. Unless they think somebody’s going to buy their stuff, nobody’s going to hire.
Republicans are right. Starting with the payroll tax, we need much lower FEDERAL taxes on the 99%. Putting those dollars back in people’s pockets will drive DEMAND.
Democrats are right. We need much MORE federal investment in health care, education, and infrastructure. See Eisenhower, Republican.
We’re off the gold standard. From 1946 from NY Fed Chair Beardsley Ruml:
“(Federal) Taxes for revenue are obsolete”
“…The necessity for a government to tax in order to maintain both its independence and its solvency is true for state and local governments, but it is not true for a national government. Two changes of the greatest consequence have occurred in the last twenty-five years which have substantially altered the position of the national state with respect to the financing of its current requirements.
The first of these changes is the gaining of vast new experience in the management of central banks.
The second change is the elimination, for domestic purposes, of the convertibility of the currency into gold.”
…
http://www.constitution.org/tax/us-ic/cmt/ruml_obsolete.pdf
This is a nice intro to Modern Monetary Theory #MMT from John Carney. “How high should taxes get on the wealthy?” http://www.cnbc.com/id/45402737 He used to be at CNBC, now he’s with the Wall Street Journal.
It’s not the FEDERAL budget that has to “balance,” it’s the THREE economic sectors, public, private (domestic), and foreign. When the private sector and the foreign sector are broke, it’s the public sector, that’s the FEDERAL government has to SPEND.
Dr. Stephanie Kelton, @stephaniekelton economics professor at UMKC, explains it very well in this very accessible 49-minute video.
http://www.fields.utoronto.ca/video-archive/2013/11/221-2524
Wall Street understands this and they never have any problems getting money from both parties and the President.
“Bank Of America Dumps $75 Trillion In Derivatives On U.S. Taxpayers With Federal Approval”
http://seekingalpha.com/article/301260-bank-of-america-dumps-75-trillion-in-derivatives-on-u-s-taxpayers-with-federal-approval
To put that in perspective, US GDP in 2012 was around $16.5 trillion. We blew a lot more than the $6 trillion, they’re claiming in Iraq and Afghanistan. Social Security’s Trust Fund is $2.3 trillion. Bank of America is just one Wall Street bank. They all have derivative exposure, but they won’t disclose how much. I’ve seen estimates of $700 trillion.
The problem is there’s almost zero economic benefit to those derivatives. We can run out of potable water, safe food, minerals, and metals. We can’t run out of currency. Right now we have cost-push inflation, because our entire economy is tied to fossil fuels. We need massive federal investment in green infrastructure to change that. The last time we had demand-pull inflation (too many dollars chasing too few goods) was World War II. It’s no accident that we also had full employment and zero lost output. Today we have way too much slack in the economy, too much unemployment, too much lost output. We also http://www.lostoutputclock.com
If we ever get to the point where we have demand-pull inflation, that’s when you bring back the payroll tax and other federal income taxes on the 99%. They do not fund the federal government. We don’t borrow dollars from China or Wall Street.
Warren Mosler @wbmosler is excellent in this short speech.
http://moslereconomics.com/2010/02/04/dallas-address/
Once you understand this stuff, you realize how easy it is for the federal government to serve as the “employer of last resort.” “…Under a job guarantee program modeled on the WPA (the Works Progress Administration, in existence from 1935 to 1943 after being renamed the Work Projects Administration in 1939) and the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps, 1933-1942). The program would offer a job to any American who was ready and willing to work at the federal minimum wage, plus legislated benefits. No time limits. No means testing. No minimum education or skill requirements….”
http://ineteconomics.org/blog/institute/plan-all-detroits-out-there
There are an infinite number of jobs out there that have a “public purpose.” Helping the mentally ill, collecting real-time data on climate change… all those could be locally administered by certified non-profits which are not allowed to compete with for-profit companies. The funding for the jobs, however, would come from federal block grants to the states. States and local governments need full employment to be able to generate tax revenue from their citizens. Unless you think the federal government is the answer to all our problems, you want robust state and local governments. That doesn’t happen without state and local tax revenue.
This is a nice piece from Forbes: “Four Reasons You Should Consider Washington’s Deficit As Your Surplus”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2014/02/24/deficit-as-your-surplus/
“Diagrams & Dollars: Modern Money Illustrated,” is less than four-minutes, it’s excellent.
Denis,
My point would be that you are a kook who subscribes to a political worldview that is entirely unworkable, which is why your libertarian party has never gained control of any government anywhere ever in the western world or otherwise. That would be my point.
Steve, many thanks for another great post.
I’m still a little low on el-fundo, but am still budgeting to buy at least one of your CD’s.
IMHO, in some form, this is good talking point for Dems: “Solow lectures Mankiw on the one percent.”
“…Most serious ethical thinkers distinguish between deservingness and happenstance. Deservingness has to be rigorously earned. You do not ‘deserve’ that part of your income that comes from your parents’ wealth or connections or, for that matter, their DNA. You may be born just plain gorgeous or smart or tall, and those characteristics add to the market value of your marginal product, but not to your deserts….”
http://larspsyll.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/solow-lectures-mankiw-on-the-one-percent/
John, if the “real” job creators are consumers with money, we could achieve an unemployment rate of 0 easily enough. Just print money. Of course that fails everywhere its ever been tried.
Denis, the next time you want to complain about taxes, look in the mirror. You’re the one keeping them so high.
Here’s a newsflash. We do print money. Did you miss the link about the $75 trillion to Wall Street or did you just ignore it? FDR told U.S. citizens they could not redeem dollar bills for gold. Nixon told foreigners they could not redeem their dollar bills for gold.
What part of “we’re off the gold standard,” don’t you get?
Do you remember when we sold all those cars to pay for World War II? Nope, neither do I.
Your kind of ignorance is the reason we have cost-push inflation. We could be investing in solar, wind, biomass and plenty of other technologies, including, but not limited to natural gas from renewable sources #nofracking and hydrogen, but the oligarchs have too much invested in fossil fuels. Highly centralized power generation is unacceptable in a post-9/11 world. We need to decentralize it, but thanks to unprintables like you, our electrical grid will continue to be we’ll continue to be needlessly vulnerable.
Just nonsense now from you John. I am causing high taxes? How the heck would you know? I am not leeching off of others, I pay for my own sons education, I am generating lots of sales taxes through my business,I am not clogging up the courts or our jails etc… I think you are getting a pretty good deal from me John. Your welcome. Have a nice day.
Denis,
I want to apologize for not including high unemployment in your list of sins. I was remiss.
Earth to Denis. Why do you love the federal payroll tax, FICA? As long as you don’t admit that NY Fed Chair Beardsley Ruml was right in ’46, (Federal) “Taxes for revenue are obsolete,” you are causing higher federal and that leaves a lot less money to pay state and local taxes at the same time that the “demand leakage,” narrows the tax base.
“…The necessity for a government to tax in order to maintain both its independence and its solvency is true for state and local governments, but it is not true for a national government. Two changes of the greatest consequence have occurred in the last twenty-five years which have substantially altered the position of the national state with respect to the financing of its current requirements.
The first of these changes is the gaining of vast new experience in the management of central banks.
The second change is the elimination, for domestic purposes, of the convertibility of the currency into gold.”
http://www.constitution.org/tax/us-ic/cmt/ruml_obsolete.pdf
“Broadening the tax base,” is old-fashioned Republican for raising taxes on the poor. When you align with (most but not all of the) oligarchs on austerity, you force both parties to continue pursuing a “balanced” federal budget. That not only causes higher federal, state, and local taxes, it’s “demand leakage.” “Demand” is what drives the need for “supply.” Our high unemployment is a direct result of economic illiterates such as yourself crushing DEMAND. “A rising tide floats all boats.” When you support idiotic policies that crush demand, YOU put people out of work. Even if you run a collection agency, your business runs on customers BUYING stuff. The debt you “buy,” which is your bread and butter, is the result of folks who had the temerity to buy stuff.
You better pay for your son’s education, if it’s college debt, thanks to the oligarchs, it can’t be discharged in a bankruptcy. Do a search on Sallie Mae and Wall Street to see how they’ve bribed the federal government to soak you on your college loans.
When you decide to support local state and federal taxes, you’ll support massive federal block grants to the states for health care, education, and green infrastructure. It’s that money that puts people to work. It’s those jobs that allow states and local government to fund themselves. The more people who have family-supporting jobs, the more fairly the tax burden can be assessed. High unemployment rates are what kill state and local budgets. The unemployed are also more susceptible to divorce, unwanted pregnancies, bankruptcy, violence and mental illness. So, when you figure out which end is up, you’ll support policies that try to help manage the social destruction that comes from unemployment.
Oh, now your sorry self wants a “thank-you” and a medal for not getting arrested and convicted? Sorry Denis, not all of us have your abysmally low standards. We expect you not to break the law. It’s part of your civic responsibility. Now if you meant to write you support a federal job guarantee, and you’re against the nanny state and its job-killing-government-regulations against marijuana, why didn’t you say so? I would never encourage anyone, who did not already have a serious illness to use pot, but the prohibition against alcohol did not work either. If you want lower state and federal taxes, pot legalization should be a very high priority. “Legal Marijuana Market Exceeds Tax Hopes, Creating Opportunities” http://www.marketwatch.com/story/legal-marijuana-market-exceeds-tax-hopes-creating-opportunities-2014-02-27?reflink=MW_news_stmp Do you see President Obama’s DOJ prosecuting any Wall Street CEO’s for crashing the economy in 2008? It’s exceedingly rare when someone who isn’t poor ends up in jail. If you’re concerned about “clogging up the courts and jails,” stop supporting higher taxes and cost-push inflation. Stop working against common sense solutions like a federal job guarantee.
You’re welcome, not ‘your,’ welcome in the context you used.
Thanks for the laughs, DN. For someone who protested that the discussion was not about you, you certainly seem to be disagreeing with yourself in this comment. You’ve also made quite a few claims here, about yourself, that nobody else could verify without knowing your source of income, your business or your occupation. Retail, are you selling only US manufactured goods or Chinese government subsidized crap? Are you a tavern or bar owner? Are you selling sweat shop tee-shirts or hats with your logo? Are you selling alcohol and if so what makes you think that alcohol related crimes, drunk driving or domestic abuse related to consumption of alcohol might not be adding to the burden of the court system? Was it not you who was complaining about others here changing the subject a few comments upthread?
In other words, without specific further information, your claims are worth what we paid for them. Nothing. And there’s nothing like a good laugh to brighten my day. Cheers.
Oh, and Denis,
I am not seeing any blushing from the Kochs.
http://inthesetimes.com/article/16362/the_real_welfare_queens
Sorry, not the Chinese yuan but the Indian rupee. And free wine to consumer patrons was a recent cause for you to argue for. The Giggle is my friend, fourth comment, I feel so ignored.
NOT.
The Reverend William Barber, President of the North Carolina NAACP and co-founder of the Moral Mondays Movement is coming to Madison.
https://www.facebook.com/events/678101198903491/
I want to bring Moral Mondays to Morrison County Mn…..they claim they want to be the “kindness capitol of the world.” I want to help them get there. My quaint little river town has GREAT BIG PROBLEMS. Please help me get started. 320-360-3931. Thanks in advance for your assistance. With hope…robin hensel