The story behind the case is as intriguing as the arguments themselves.  A strange alliance had formed:  Ted Olsen and David Boies were the attorneys on either side of the infamous Bush v. Gore case, in which the Supreme Court issued a bizarre “one-time, non-precedent-setting” decision that halted the Florida recount of the 2000 election, and effectively handed the election to George W. Bush.  Ted Olsen had argued for Bush’s side of the case, and he would go on to become Attorney Solicitor General during Bush’s presidency.  There is no mistaking Olsen’s politics: He’s a conservative.  So one might expect that Gore’s counsel in Bush v. Gore, David Boies, would be a man of liberal leanings….but this is not the case.  In fact, Boies had been the president of his school’s Young Republicans…and his legal interests seemed to lie in the areas of anti-trust and intellectual properties issues, more than in anything distinctly partisan, political, or liberal.

But there’s no debating that the men had argued as bitter rivals during the Bush v. Gore case, so it might come as a surprise that they now, as a matter of personal choice and initiative, decided to take up the fight to legalize same-sex marriage, working together on the same side of the courtroom aisle.  As I said, it may surprise you…but it shouldn’t.  Whatever the politics of these two men may be, they both are experts in Constitutional law…and to read Olsen’s recent essay for Newsweek, it becomes apparent to even the most casual reader that the body of American law clearly supports only one side of the argument.  I STRONGLY urge everyone to read Olsen’s essay here, or watch this clip where he explains his motives.  For the purposes of continuing this essay, I will summarize:

Olsen…had an issue he couldn’t quite reconcile. As a conservative, he had long been against the idea of gay marriage…and as a lawyer, he had never really inspected the issue.  Eventually, this represented an ideological “imbalance” that could not be maintained.  He examined the issue himself, in terms of both the history of our nation and the law…and he simply could not find a legal argument against the legalization of gay marriage, and he found several supporting it.  So he talked to conservative friends, particularly friends who were also attorneys and legal experts, and he put before them a simple proposition:  Provide me with a legal argument why same-sex couples should be denied the right to marry.  They couldn’t.  Many of them admitted it.  They were able to provide religious arguments, and some “it just seems wrong” arguments…but nothing legal, nothing constitutional.  Upon further reflection of the social and economic benefits of marriage within a society such as ours…Olsen realized something else:  He not only found that denying gay citizens the right to marry was clearly unconstitutional, but he also found considerable societal merits to allowing same-sex marriages.  He even found social benefits that appealed to him as a conservative.

With these personal discoveries in hand, Olsen allied with Boies, and they challenged Proposition 8.

Nobody had much of an inkling as to the legal “chances for success.“  But they should have.  They won.

The decision, once read, makes it very clear just how obvious, from a legal and constitutional perspective, this issue really is.  Again, I suggest reading it here, but seeing as it is a 138-page ruling, I will provide a summary of its contents:

PLAINTIFFS’ CASE:

After a brief description of the contents of Proposition 8, and the legal history surrounding it, the ruling begins describing the case against Proposition 8 on page 5.  It couldn’t be simpler, and it is PURELY legal.  In fact, not only is it a purely legal argument in nature…it is purely constitutional in nature (that is to say, it is based on constitutional arguments and not merely based on statutes and/or case precedent).

First, Proposition 8 violates the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution., because the State is denying individuals the freedom to choose who they will marry.  Period.

Secondly, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, because the State is denying a right to one group (gays and lesbians) that it provides to another (heterosexuals).  Period.

That’s it.  That’s the entirety of the plaintiffs’ argument.  That’s why I have long wondered why this battle has taken so long to be decided…the law, the CONSTITUTION, seems so very clear on this point.

PROPONENTS’ CASE:

The case in support of Proposition 8 is, well, let’s just say it doesn’t appear to be legal in nature.  Which is, of course, interesting….because this is a legal proceeding to determine whether or not a LAW is CONSTITUTIONAL or not.  One would assume that the LEGAL defenders of the measure would bring some LEGAL arguments to court…if they existed.  Their argument was as follows:

First, since the stated purpose of Proposition 8 is to protect heterosexual marriage and not to “attack the gay lifestyle“…it does no harm to gay citizens.

Secondly, it’s really about protecting the children, because legalized gay marriage would mean that teachers might teach children that gay marriage exists, and that it is equal to heterosexual marriage…and children should not have to hear such things: “We should not accept a court decision that may result in public schools teaching our own kids that gay marriage is ok.”

Third, a primary goal of the State is to encourage procreative sexual relationships (in marriage, or out of wedlock…intentional pregnancies, and accidental ones)…and to encourage people procreating to enter into heterosexual marriage, which they deem to be the “statistically optimal” environment for procreative sex and for childrearing.

Fourth, since California does allow domestic partnerships, even though these partnerships are not equal in legal rights and privileges, they have given gay citizens a “choice,” so the Fourteenth Amendment is not violated.

PROPONENTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT:

When the supporters of Proposition 8 asked for summary judgment, the judge asked them a simple question:  Even IF it were true that the State’s only interest in marriage were procreative, how would allowing gay people to marry harm procreation?

Their response:  That’s not the “legally relevant question,” and then when pushed further…”Your honor, my answer is: I don’t know.”

The motion was denied, but not before proponents promised to provide TWENTY-THREE reasons that same-sex marriage is harmful to heterosexual marriage.  The judge notes in his ruling that later…they would only produce one witness and that “he provided no credible evidence to support any of the claimed adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate.”

WITNESSES:

Without going into detail on each witnesses’ testimonial, the plaintiff’s in this case brought forward EIGHT lay witnesses, as well as NINE expert witnesses.  The proponents…called only one.

The judge indicates that the questioning focused on the following points:

“WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S REFUSAL TO

RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX;

WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SHOWS CALIFORNIA HAS AN INTEREST IN

DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SAME-SEX AND OPPOSITE-SEX UNIONS; and

WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SHOWS PROPOSITION 8 ENACTED A PRIVATE

MORAL VIEW WITHOUT ADVANCING A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST.“

The four plaintiffs in the case testified about their personal wishes to be married, and how they felt they had been harmed by the Proposition 8 campaign, and by the practice of banning same-sex marriage.

The nine experts talked about the social, economic, and psychological benefits of marriage, both to the individuals forming the union, and to society at large.  They also discussed historical limitations to marriage, such as those based on race or other prejudices, and drew comparisons.  They established that no meaningful differences exist between heterosexual and homosexual couples, except in terms of procreational sexual activity.  They testified that, statistically, same-sex couples are every bit as stable and lasting, and every bit as capable of raising well-adjusted children.  They testified that they can see no reason why same-sex couples ability to marry would in any way hinder or discourage heterosexual couples from marrying.  Their experts showed that parents with no “biological link” to their children, as is the case with adoptive parents, actually outperform biological parents in some situations.  They clearly showed that “domestic partnerships” are not equal to marriages in any social or legal way, nor do they enjoy the same cultural esteem.

And…perhaps most importantly…the experts told the court the obvious truth:  the true motive behind the Proposition 8 measure, and historically all measures like it…is FEAR.  They discussed the pervasive attempts over the years to brand homosexuality as “immoral” and homosexuals as a “danger to children.“  The experts even used some of Proposition 8′s proponents’ arguments against them; During the public campaign to gain support for the measure, Proposition 8 advocates told the public that homosexuals were “more likely to molest children” and that failure to pass the measure would cause the states “one-by-one to fall into Satan’s hands.”

The proponent’s sole witness, David Blankenhorn, well, he held to the idea that the primary purpose of marriage is to “regulate filiation” (ie. control sex so that it is used for making babies in an optimal environment), and then…

…he conceded that legalized same-sex marriage would be beneficial to California, and to gay citizens, and a “victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion“…

…he conceded that, while he thinks same-sex marriage could somehow “weaken” heterosexual marriage, he could not say how or why it would do so…

…he conceded that, while he holds that parents with a biological link to their children are preferred, studies suggest that adoptive parents can actually outperform biological parents in “providing protective care.”

CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS:

What follows in the ruling, is the judge’s determination for credibility for each of the witnesses.  He found the plaintiffs and the other four lay witnesses for the plaintiffs to be credible, and the plaintiffs’ nine experts to be “amply qualified.”

On the other hand…the judge points out that the proponents withdrew all but one of their witnesses, citing that their experts feared for their “personal safety” if the proceedings were broadcast.  The judge also mentions that once it had been established that the proceedings WOULD NOT be broadcast in any way…proponents still only produced one witness.  And that witness, Blankenhorn…while a self-proclaimed expert in “marriage, family, and child well-being,” he had no degree in sociology, psychology, or anthropology…and even Blankenhorn admitted that his knowledge came from “read[ing] articles and ha[ving] conversations with people, and tr[ying] to be an informed person about it.“  In the end, the judge determined that Blankenhorn’s testimony did NOT constitute “expert testimony” and was therefore “inadmissible opinion testimony” since Federal Rule of Evidence 702 dictates that expert testimony must actually contain actual “FACTS OR DATA” that were gathered using “RELIABLE PRINCIPLES AND METHODS.”

And then…to drive home the point that Blankenhorn’s testimony was not based on data that had been properly gathered, on pages 41 through 49 the judge points out (and provides research citations) all the places where Blankenhorn was factually WRONG.

AND SO ON:

The next 55 pages of the ruling concern themselves with the many “Findings of Fact” noted during the course of the trial…and are followed on page 109 by the “Conclusions of Law.“  After a lengthy and thorough examination of each side’s key positions, Judge Walker concludes:

1 - Preserving the “definition of marriage” as being between a man and a woman?  He writes: “Tradition alone, however, cannot form a rational basis for a law…tradition of restricting an individual’s choice of spouse based on gender does not rationally further a state interest…”

2 - The need to “act with caution” when implementing social changes?  He writes: “Plaintiffs presented evidence at trial sufficient to rebut any claim that marriage for same-sex couples amounts to a sweeping social change…the evidence shows beyond debate that allowing same-sex couples to marry has at least a neutral, if not a positive, effect on the institution of marriage and that same-sex couples’ marriages would benefit the state.”

3 - Opposite-sex parents are superior in parenting, and would be harmed by same-sex couples being allowed to marry?  He writes: “The evidence supports two points which together show Proposition 8 does not advance any of the identified interests…same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents are of equal quality…and Proposition 8 does not make it more likely that opposite-sex couples will marry and raise offspring…”

4 - Allowing same-sex marriage would violate the First Amendment rights of those who oppose gay marriage to disagree with the practice, and who wish to teach their children to reject same-sex marriage?  He writes: “These purported interests fail as a matter of law.  Proposition 8 does not affect any First Amendment right or responsibility of parents to educate their children…Proposition 8 is not rationally related to an interest in protecting the rights of those opposed to same-sex couples because, as a matter of law, Proposition 8 does not affect the rights of those opposed to homosexuality or to marriage for couples of the same sex.”

5 - The state has an interest in treating same-sex couples as different from opposite-sex couples?  He writes: “Here, proponents assume a premise that the evidence thoroughly rebutted: rather than being different, same-sex and opposite-sex unions are, for all purposes relevant to California law, exactly the same.  The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.”

6 - Catchall…any other reasons?  He writes: “…proponents, amici and the court, despite ample opportunity and a full trial, have failed to identify any rational basis Proposition 8 could conceivably advance.”

He goes on to say, “In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. FF 78-80. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate. See Romer, 517 US at 633; Moreno, 413 US at 534; Palmore v Sidoti, 466 US 429, 433 (1984) (“[T]he Constitution cannot control [private biases] but neither can it tolerate them.”).”

And in his conclusion: “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”

CLOSING THOUGHT:

I suppose the issue of gay marriage has always been somewhat of a mystery to me.

It would seem, in a nation of laws (and lawyers!) that there would be enough people knowledgeable enough on the subject of the law, on the Constitution, on Due Process…that such a clear-cut legal issue would have been resolved long ago.  But it hasn’t…

It would seem, in a nation full of people who were at one time discriminated against in the exact same ways, using the exact same arguments…I’m talking to you, Native Americans, women, and African Americans…that there would be a multitude of people able to say, “Hey!  I know what you are doing…we have seen these tricks and faulty arguments before…you did this to us, and we’re not going to let you do it to someone else!“  But that hasn’t happened either…

The fact that it is still yet to be resolved shows the sheet power of prejudice when mixed with tradition and/or religion.  It renders citizens blind to their own hypocrisy, as many of them will completely reject the discrimination of the past, while actively calling for discrimination in the present.  At one point, those opposed to marriage between black and white citizens quoted moral, scientific, and biblical rationales…and if you went up to your average Proposition 8 supporter, they would tell you that that is WRONG…and then they would turn around and use the same “moral arguments,” bogus science, and biblical references to condemn same-sex marriage.

But in the end they will fail.  Because it’s not about their pious, self-proclaimed “moral authority.”  And it’s certainly not about their religion.  And the science and social data is not on their side.

It’s about the law.  We are a nation of laws.  We are all bound by these laws, and sheltered by the protection they provide.  We are fortunate that these laws are applied in a way that is designed to treat us all equal…and that will not allow some among us to be treated as “less equal” for very long.

The Democrats of the civil rights era didn’t have too much in common with the Democrats of today, either.  They were not the diverse party they are now, nor did they place a strong emphasis on civil rights.  In fact, during the civil rights struggles…they tended to stick with their platform of states’ rights, and to assert that each individual state could decide on how to handle matters of discrimination, workplace inequality, and segregation.  They did have one, big advantage in the South:  As the party representing workers and unions over management and “big business,” they held dominant sway over the southern states, which were more heavily populated by working class and impoverished citizens than the other regions of the country.

Looking back at the two parties surely has a sort of “looking glass” feel to it.  Each party was “halfway” towards the policies it holds today…with only one major ideological flip needed to set things as they are now.  This change would come courtesy of the Republican Party and its new president in the early 1970′s: Richard Milhous Nixon.  Nixon, who had come from a very poor background himself, knew of one sure way to lure southern voters away from the Democratic Party’s grasp.  One subject that would outweigh the voters’ interest in jobs, income, and all other areas of economic self-interest.  Race.  Nixon’s use of race to influence voting, often accompanied with “social conservatism” issues, would form the heart of what has come to be known in politics as the “Southern Strategy” of the GOP.  This was not a completely new strategy.  In fact, during the civil rights struggles, Democrats had widely employed race-baiting, a cornerstone of the “Southern Strategy,” as a defense against the coming wave of changes, and with some success…they had won some battles, while losing the overall war.  Republicans, like Nixon, would perfect its usage as a political tactic.

You see, “race-baiting” is the politically-safer, passive-aggressive version of “overt racism.“  The time had come in America when overtly racist statements would cause the speaker to lose support among liberals, moderates, and even many conservatives.  While many people at the time still held racist beliefs, there was a growing common understanding that it was not acceptable to utter them aloud.  Race-baiting allowed politicians and other public figures to address racist voters, to play upon their prejudice-based fears…while still being able to deny that they had said anything “racist.”  Examples include:

- Showing photos, statistics, or simply retelling events in such a way as to make people of a particular race look menacing or dangerous.

- Making claims of people of a particular race “taking over” in terms of a locale, an industry, government power.

- Making claims that measures intended to help a disadvantaged group overcome institutionalized prejudice are giving them an “unfair advantage.“

- Offering racists “substitution terms.” For example, instead of calling a person a racist term, substituting terms like “foreign,” or “socialist/communist/fascist,” or simply inferring that they are “arrogant,” or that they otherwise “don’t know their place.“

- Intimating that the previously dominant race or culture is “under attack” by the other race.  This attack may come in terms of social norms, dress, music, religion…or even accusations inferring that interracial reproduction some sort of “danger.”

Suffice it to say, the strategy worked for the Republicans, and southern voters have strongly supported them to this day.  The transformation was now complete.  Democrats had become the party for minorities, civil rights, centralized government power, labor and unions, higher taxes, and public works.  Republicans had become the party of big business, lower taxes, smaller government, states’ rights…and prejudice.

Then for nearly forty years…the Republicans didn’t need the “Southern Strategy” as much.  The public trusted their assurances that they were the party of “fiscal responsibility” and “foreign policy experience” and so from the Reagan years to the end of the presidency of George W. Bush…the tactics were rarely employed.  That is, until Barack Obama was elected.  That is, until the people of this country found out that they were anything but “responsible” with the country’s finances and anything but “skilled” in terms of dealing with either friends OR enemies abroad.

With no accomplishments to brag about, and their economic and diplomatic skills under fire, Republicans, the Tea Party, and the rest of the nation’s conservatives would resort to using the “Southern Strategy” once again.  Only this time, they had new tools to aid with its implementation: the internet and Fox News. This time, the would not only target black Americans…but also foreigners (particularly Hispanics), gays, and Muslims.

Here’s Rachel Maddow, giving clear examples of Fox News’ ongoing attempts to play on the fears of white Americans:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qAQ3XXxKAY

Fox News and the conservative blogosphere went after Obama’s advisor on Environmental Equality, Van Jones, with nearly incessant coverage portraying him as someone with “dangerously radical” views on race, and as a “Marxist” or “Leninist.”

They also went after Kevin Jennings, Obama’s pick for “Safe and Drug-Free Schools” czar…by attacking him for being gay, insinuating that he was somehow pro-pedophilia, and stirring fears that he would allow gay teachers to “turn students gay.”

They attacked Chai Feldblum, Obama’s appointment to serve on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission…by stoking fears that she would “promote gay sex,” and would give gays a hiring advantage over heterosexuals.

They have repeatedly covered items related to an ongoing theme: the supposed “war” on Christianity.  Any other religious group enjoying the freedom to practice their religioun…is portrayed as a “threat” to Christians being able to practice theirs.  Sound ridiculous?  That’s because it IS, and this was not lost on Jon Stewart of The Daily Show:

They gave a lot of time, and tacit support, to the new Arizona law, which unconstitutionally requires Arizona’s police to ask anyone “suspected” of being an illegal alien to prove his or her citizenship.  They allowed the bill’s supporters to tell their viewing audience about the murders, kidnappings, and beheadings occurring in their state due to lax border enforcement.  Of course, what Fox did not do…is to point out that there have been no such beheadings, and that violent crimes in these states have actually DECREASED over recent years.

Recently they went after the Department of Agriculture’s Shirley Sherrod, citing that a film clip of her speaking at an event was just “another example” of blacks in the Obama administration who are racially discriminatory against whites.  The clip was quickly revealed to be deceptively edited…Sherrod was actually telling a morality tale about overcoming racism, and the speech took place many years before she was even a federal employee.

For the last week, they have been allowing a single story to dominate their headlines.  They show a picture of two “menacing” black men from the New Black Panthers standing outside a polling place, stoking fears of black radicals taking over the political process.  Of course, they don’t focus on the fact that the men were removed by police, banned from serving as poll-watchers, and that the Justice Department justifiably decided not to press charges against the men because the case was so weak.  They also don’t point out that while there are an abundance of case examples of voter intimidation being perpetrated against blacks in this country…there is just this one, ridiculous example of the reverse ever occurring.

And countless times…Fox went after Obama himself.  They gave “birthers,” those that claim Obama is not an American citizen, lots of air time.  They’ve attempted to paint him as “arrogant,” or “socialist,” or as “pushing a black agenda,” at every available opportunity.  They’ve even gone so far as to directly call Obama…a “racist.”  In fact, that’s the real hidden “trick” behind race-baiting: Since you’re not making overtly racist statements, if anyone accuses you of racism…just deny it, blast them for “playing the race card,” and if they are a minority member, you accuse THEM of being racist/prejudiced against YOU.  This was recently the case when the NAACP called for the Tea Party to condemn the racist positions of some of their supporters, due to the PROVEN fact that a number of white-supremacy groups openly support the Tea Party.  So how did the Tea Party respond?  They feigned outrage at the suggestion that ALL of them are racists, even though no such allegation had been made, and…wait for it…accused the NAACP of being racist against white people.  It was only when the Tea Party’s spokesperson made obviously racist comments on his blog, that he was forced to resign.

I hear the effects of this strategy every day, living in the South.  I hear men and women I work with whisper things about how “hard it is to be white, and Christian” these days.  They moan about how they are “under attack.“  They fear the “effect” that society’s growing acceptance of homosexuality will have on their children.  They swear, incorrectly, that ours was founded as a “Christian nation,” and that people of other faiths should build their churches elsewhere.  They complain about “Mexicans,” who according to them cause crime to rise (incorrect), and who steal “their” jobs (also incorrect), and who soak up massive amounts of tax dollars by receiving free services (yup…also incorrect).  They complain that their lives would be “so much easier” if they were black, Hispanic, or some other minority, and had everything “given to them.”  These are the fruits of the “Southern Strategy” of race-baiting: Large numbers of semi-literate, white people feeling victimized and threatened by the very idea that someone else….someone DIFFERENT…might now live, work, worship alongside them.  Told that the racism they have held, quietly in their hearts…can now be expressed as long as they do it using certain careful terms, certain substitutions, certain “code.”  Told that even in expressing their racism, THEY are not racists…because they are the victims of the racism of the minorities.

Lo! How the mighty “Party of Lincoln” has fallen.

I only see one cure: We must rediscover our passion for the American ideals that were set forth in the Declaration of Independence.  Read it here.  I know, it’s been some time since you read it…so really let it sink in.  Now study the Founding Fathers and their passions…and let those passions become yours.  For it will only be when we all accept the universality of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…that our nation will experience true growth, true unity, true national greatness.  It will only be when all Americans embrace the idea that this nation was created as a haven of racial, religious, ideological, and political tolerance…that we will be able to focus our true and full attentions on the very real problems that face our country, and that keep us from thriving.  It will only be when we all accept that one group’s religious doctrine was never meant to dominate our government, our schools, our workplaces, or our laws…that we will see that it is not about what you or I believe, but instead, it is about what all of us agree on together.

And most of all: We must abandon our fears…especially our fears of each other. Then…we must condemn those who play upon our fears for little more than petty, partisan purposes.  Shame on you, Republicans….shame on you, Fox News….shame on you Tea Party….shame on you Breitbart, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, WorldNetDaily, Rush Limbaugh, and all you other ideologues.  And shame on us…for ever having listened to them.

I’ll leave you with Keith Olbermann’s spirited call to reject race-baiting…if we all had such passion, it would already be a thing of the past:

Part 1:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcI8nWyugQs

Part 2:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=34cynRWkPMs

YOU know that there are essentially two sides to the “balance sheet.” On one side is your “Assets/Revenue/Income“…the money that is coming in. On the other side is your “Liabilities/Debits/Expenses“…the money that is going out.

YOU know that these two sides, in conjunction, determine your bottom line…which is to say, whether or not you are making money (in budgeting, we call this a “surplus“) or losing money (in budget terms, a “deficit“).

Republicans are currently trying to tell us (examples here, here, and here from Huffington Post) that spending money, like extending unemployment benefits, increases the deficit and is, therefore, BAD. They say all measures to spend money MUST be offset by reduced spending in other areas.

In principle, this is TRUE. Yes -- adding expenses without either increasing revenue or decreasing expenditures somewhere else…would increase the deficit. File that little equation under “D” for “Duh.”

They also tell us that reducing revenue, for example the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, does not increase the deficit and is, therefore, GOOD. They say these tax cuts do not require that either more taxes be collected somewhere else, or that spending be decreased to offset their effect.

That much, is FALSE…and is, perhaps, the most irresponsible rationale we’ve heard used to justify what amounts to little more than partisan political hackery. Your average person with no financial education whatsoever can see that decreasing the amount of tax revenue without increasing revenue somewhere else or decreasing expenses WOULD increase the deficit.

See the attached graph…and you’ll see that tax cuts, in fact, have a bigger impact on increasing the deficit than two foreign wars, stimulative spending, and entitlement programs:

Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

This particular deception…is nothing new.  Once upon a time, in our not-so-distant past, a man named George Herbert Walker Bush (a Republican) ran against another man named Ronald Reagan (also a Republican) for President of the United States.  Reagan espoused an idea that has come to be known as “Supply Side Economics.” Essentially, this theory holds that reducing taxes on the private sector will lead to significant economic growth…enough growth to offset the loss of tax revenue.  Bush, in challenging Reagan’s proposal, would famously call this “voodoo economics.“  Watch part of the debate between the two men:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=edchtf9MS7g

Reagan would later go on to win the election, and today he is viewed by many in the Republican Party to be a “true conservative hero,“ a sort of epitome of what Republicans are “supposed to be.” But the truth is that his presidency, in many ways, represented an END to responsible, fiscal conservatism, and it was during his presidency that America’s federal deficit, and our national debt, SKYROCKETED.

In fact, if we look at the increase in the national debt while the last two Democrats were in office, Carter and Clinton, we saw increases of 42% and 36%, respectively.

While Reagan, following “tax cut ideology,” was President…the National Debt increased by 182%.

George H. W. Bush, who initially lambasted “tax cut ideology,” only to later adopt it himself….saw an increase of 55%.

George W. Bush, also added MORE tax cuts…and saw an increase of 89%.

Wait a minute.  Here are the Republicans, claiming STILL to be the party of “fiscal responsibility and conservatism,” and they are spending us into MORE debt than the Democrats, and are continuing to reduce our tax revenue through tax cuts, creating a LARGER deficit than under Democrats.  How exactly is this methodology either “responsible” OR “conservative?”

And what’s worse, they continue to spout the SAME lie as before.  Just this month, Mike Pence (R-Ind.) said, “The reality is that as you study — when President Kennedy cut marginal tax rates, when Ronald Reagan cut marginal tax rates, when President Bush imposed those tax cuts, they actually generated economic growth, they expand the economy, they expand tax revenue.“  Senator Kyl (R-Az.) has echoed this idea, as have Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and many others in the GOP.  Unfortunately for Pence, and for all of us, what he says is clearly NOT reality.  George W. Bush’s economic policy group told him tax cuts would not generate enough growth to make up for the lost revenue. Bush’s Chief Economist was even more direct about this when he said, “You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.”

And yet so many Americans, seduced by the idea of tax cuts and ignoring their own common sense, still accept and repeat the GOP’s fiscal mantra: “Tax cuts pay for themselves.”

I love a good ideological debate, and there are a great many that we can have…but is it necessary for us to debate an issue where one side’s position is completely, demonstrably false?  Must we continue to listen to the same people who ballooned our debt and our deficit, by cutting tax revenues while spending as if the money were on fire…tell us that they deserve to be elected back into office because they have the solution to the problem: More tax cuts and responsible spending…the latter of which they proven incapable of doing?  For how long, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and amidst the screaming of expert economists, must Americans still see the GOP as the party of “foreign policy and fiscal responsibility?”

An Analogy:  You are very sick.  You go to a doctor who says he has a revolutionary, “proven” cure (although he can’t produce any proof of it actually working) called “slap therapy.“  He slaps you…nothing happens, you’re still sick.  He says, “Well, you have to do it more than once,” and slaps you again…but you’re still sick.  You decide to try another doctor who has an actual, proven, documented therapy which has helped millions of people…but it will take months of treatment, and the treatment is uncomfortable.  You try it, but after a few weeks you are tired of the discomfort and waiting so you go back to the first doctor.  He says he has the answer to your problems: “slap therapy.”  And the slapping begins anew…

America…aren’t you tired of getting slapped?