I am, indeed, the 99%

As the GOP tries to justify its desire to decrease or remove altogether corporate and millionaire tax rates, the rest of the country is desperately trying to make ends meet.

Both my husband and I are fully employed. We are incredibly fortunate. However, that does not give the government the right to take advantage of us.

 In the past 3 years, my husband, a *gasp* teacher and a *bigger gasp* member of his local and California teacher's union, has seen his insurance deductible triple. Among other cutbacks, his insurance contribution per month tripled this year and benefits decreased, and the addition of furlough days has essentially cut his salary.

Over the past several years, we've seen our tax responsibility go up at both the state and federal level. We consider ourselves to be good citizens. We give to charity. When we can't donate cash, we donate goods - clothing, supplies, etc, and we donate to our local food bank to help those less fortunate than us. We've tried to instill these same values in our children.

Now, in order to help millionaires keep even more of their money, the GOP would like to see us pay even more, while at the same time trying to claim that Americans should take care of each other, rather than rely on the government. Let's be honest. The GOP is claiming that the actual dollar amount that the uber-upper class will have to pay is greater than the dollar amount the rest of us will have to pay, and in that, yes - they are likely correct. But we're talking percentages of income here, not actual dollar amounts. Because our tax code is all about percentages. And the average wealthy American (and corporation) pays a far lower percentage of their income than does a non-wealthy American. The government's responsibility is to take care of the people over which it governs. It even says so in the Constitution of the United States.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

If, as the GOP proposes, the government increases taxes on the majority of the citizens of the country, that means that we have less income not only to spend, but to care for those less fortunate. I know Ron Paul suggests that the churches will take this on, but where does he think the churches receive their money? How does the GOP propose we manage both of those items at the same time? Just curious. Because I'm guessing that they don't expect the wealthy to bankroll their local charities, especially when they don't really get anything out of it (except of course, another tax break). (Help those less fortunate?! Blasphemy!)

Also, the hypocrisy of the GOP who fully supported the Tea Party movement as patriotic is now calling the OWS movement un-American, unpatriotic mobs, and morons. Nice to see how they support the democratic process and our constitutional right to assemble. And to see how, once again, if it supports their ideology they love it and it's patriotic, but if it doesn't jive with their politics, it's unconstitutional, unpatriotic, and mob behavior. Uh-huh.

Prime example:

Buying beer, tobacco, and unneeded gadgets while on public assistance is an argument that has been made by many a GOP politician, which is why Minnesota State House Republicans introduced HF 171 and other bills to limit poor people's access to cash. And yes, I think we all agree, that there are abusers of the system. But they are the severe exception, not the rule. And of course, we all know that everyone on welfare or public assistance must be drug abusers, too. However, the vast, overwhelming majority of people on public assistance are simply trying to keep their heads above water while they look for employment or better employment. Also, I'm saying it again - the party of Christians is once again rearing its incredibly un-Christian head.

We also have the duty to educate our people. Many presidents have made this a priority (though none have done a good job of it, IMO). However, according to Glenn Beck, these protesters should just stop whining about the fact that the a) can't afford college and b) can't get a job after college. Now that's just lovely, considering NCLB and RTTP pretty much ensure everyone is on a college track just in order to graduate high school. We now expect every child to go to college, force them to be college ready, have taken away almost all vocational tracks in schools, and have raised the price of college tuition such that it is out of the range of many Americans. We've increased the difficulty to graduate high school on this college track we've forced, thus making many students scrape by with a C average, yet the average GPA to get into college has increased, as have the SAT or ACT minimums. So how do we propose to college-educate all these students that we've forced to get onto the college track, who can now not afford nor actually get into college, and can't get a job without a college degree?

I don't have the right to not pay taxes because I don't agree with the way they are being spent. I also don't have the right to not follow laws that I don't agree with, darn it. Oh, how I wish that were so! However, these are exactly what Newt Gingrich proposed in an interview - that he wouldn't follow the federal court's rulings on cases he didn't agree with. Hello - impeachable offense, anyone? And it's also exactly what Rep Bobby Franklin said that Georgia should do in referencing Roe v Wade in HB 1. In addition to being a blatant disregard for the constitution they all claim to love so much, this is exactly what the checks and balances system is for. Wait. Is checks and balances a constitutional principle? Naaaaaah. Couldn't be.

When we begin electing officials who publicly voice their plans to directly violate the law and the constitution and do not hold them accountable, what are we teaching our children? When we impose standards on our citizens that are impossible to meet, what are we doing? What does that say about us as a society? Or the future of our country?

If I could take the time off of work, I would be protesting along with everyone else. As it is, I must do it from the pulpit of my blog.

I am the 99%, and I support those sitting in protest 100%.