Subscription: $15 / year Membership: $15/year All correspondence to: Editor: Duane Bates All correspondence to: P. O. Box 1744 Greenville, SC 29602 March, 2008

The Voice of Sanity THE NEWSLETTER OF THE UPSTATE S.C. SECULAR HUMANISTS Visit our web-site for current and back-issues at: www.uscsh.org e-mail: secularhmnst@aol.com

SUPRESSING THE VOTE: LEGALLY

The defining characteristic of any democracy is the process of citizens voting to elect their government. Our Constitution grants the right to vote to every citizen over a specified age (currently 18) to vote in Federal, state and local elections if they register to vote. Some states revoke the right to vote to convicted felons for life while other do not or allow convicted felons who have served their terms to vote. States can also purge their voting rolls based on a number of parameters, but purging must take place 90 or more days prior to an election to allow appeals by a person who’s named has been improperly purged.

The ostensible goal of our democracy is clear: to allow every citizen the opportunity to vote and express their preference for our elected officials at every level of government; to create a government of the people for the people and by the people. The reality has been, and is, quite different, with our history of legal and illegal discrimination against African-American voters now being morphed into an attempt to suppress the votes of all low income Americans by requiring rigid rules to obtain an expensive photo ID to cast a vote.

You would think that in the worlds’ greatest democracy every elected official would view the goal of achieving the highest rate of voter participation an almost sacred task, but idealism is often at odds with short-term and political and economic desires. Even in the earliest days of our Republic voting was restricted to males (white of course) who were of a certain age and a possessors of a certain amount of wealth.

The voting record of Americans, when compared to other developed democracies is poor and has gotten worse in the last 35 years, especially for the off-year elections that do not involve a presidential race. During the 1960s about 59% of registered voters voted during a presidential election year and about 47% voted in the off-year elections. Since 1974 the voting rate for presidential elections has dropped to an average rate 52%, a decline of 12% and the voting rate for off-year elections has dropped to and average of 37%, a 20% decline. There was an improvement in the elections of 2004 to 55% and 2006 to 43%. All calculations are based on the number of actual votes and the number of registered voters.

When we compare the actual votes to the number of persons eligible to register and vote the participation of Americans is even worse. Only about 60-70% of eligible Americans actually register to vote. In the last six presidential elections an average of 93 million eligible Americans either did not register to vote or registered and did not vote. In the last six off-year elections an average of 129 million eligible American either did not register or registered and did not vote. In 2004, the last presidential election 122 million eligible Americans did not vote and in the 2006 off-year elections 140 million eligible Americans did not vote. The current US population, men, women and children, is slightly over 300 million, with about 221 million persons eligible to vote

Over the years I have discussed this issue with people of all ages and educational levels who are very pleased about our low voter participation rates. The basic philosophy of these persons is that if another American does not think and vote the way he or she does they should not be allowed to vote. I had one college professor tell me that since he had a certified IQ over 140 he should get more than one vote because he is able to make better decisions as the result of his superior intelligence. Universal suffrage does not seem to have universal support in America.

The self-suppression of votes by millions of apathetic Americans eligible to vote makes the votes that are cast have more impact in the election. It also makes the election results easier to control and manipulate. When I examine the declining participation rate of Americans at the polls I have to wonder if the millions of non-voting Americans really understand the importance of their non-votes to the nation and to themselves.

Is this decline in voting by the young, the uneducated and the poor a reflection of a failure of our educational system, the increasing income and wealth chasm, or is it a fundamental cultural change that reflects a belief by many that our political system has been so gerrymandered there is simply no point in voting?

I have posted below a link to an article that deals with the current efforts of a number of states to install a system that would require a government issued photo ID to vote. A case involving such a law passed in Indiana, supported by the Bush administration, is being considered by the Supreme Court after it was challenged as unconstitutional. Critics of the proposed photo ID standard point out that tens of millions of Americans do not currently have the required photo IDs and that many poor Americans do not have the money to acquire one.

A significant number if older Americans, again primarily poor whites and African-American, do not have the legal documents, such as birth certificates, that are required as proof of to obtain state issued photo IDs. It seems to make no difference that you have held a job and filed income tax returns for decades, have a Social Security card, paid property taxes or have any of the other identifications that we all normally acquire in living our lives, you must present the required documents and pay the required fees of you don’t get a photo ID and ergo you don’t vote. Non-voters become essentially invisible in the political process.

This rigid approach to voting IDs is just another legalistic, sophisticated method designed to suppress the vote of those unable to afford to pay, or obtain the necessary documents, for, the required photo IDs because of our internalized fear resulting from the terrorist attacks of 9/11. It is also an unspoken indication of the perceived value, or the lack thereof, of the Americans unable to meet these rigid requirements.

We are seemingly willing to accept restrictions on our rights because of, in my opinion, vastly exaggerated threats of more terrorists’ attacks? It appears that some of our elected officials visualize a massive invasion of Islamic terrorists that will obtain fraudulent documents that will allow them to vote and control our electoral process. Or perhaps they are just using that vision to achieve their own agenda.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22806147/

WILL THE TAX STIMULUS PLAN REALLY HELP POOR AMERICANS?

It looks like the $ 150 billion economic stimulus plan agreed to by the White House and Congress will put a maximum of $1,600 into the hands of a married couple with two kids who earn less than $150,000 per year. The plan that the Senate still has to formally approve also includes $30 billion in incentives for businesses. About 23 million tax filers who do not earn enough to have any Federal income tax due, but pay Social Security taxes have been included in the plan. Some economists believe the stimulus pan may too little to late, but it is moving toward approval and implementation.

While any additional income is welcomed by any individual or family that falls in the bottom 50% of tax filers, those who earn about $30,000 per year or less, I have to question the distribution of the tax rebates. If an individual or couple earn more than about $103,000 per year they are in the top 10% of all tax filers. If the earnings are about $62,000, the individual or couple are in the top 25% of all tax filers. In other words, 75% of all tax filers, single or married, earn less that $62,000 per year, and 50% earn less that $31,000 per year. In 2005 the average income for the 66 million tax filers in the bottom 50% was $14,529.

Of the 66 million tax filers in the bottom 50%, 42 million have no Federal tax liability because their total income was below the total of their personal exemptions and standard deduction, $24,300 for a married couple with two kids. In addition, about 22 million tax filers in this category receive money back from the Federal government in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). In 2006 22 million tax filers received $44 billion in EITC payments. In 2007 the maximum EITC payment is $2,853 for qualifying households with one child and $4,716 for qualifying households with two children. In order to receive these maximum payments the qualifying earned income cannot exceed $15,400

If we add the $15,400 in maximum earned income, the $4,716 in EITC and the maximum tax stimulus payment of $1,600 for two kids together, the family will have a combined income of $21,716, barely above the poverty level for a family of four.

My wife and I are retired and will receive $1,200 under the tax stimulus plan. I would much rather receive nothing and see the distribution of the $130 billion be more heavily weighted toward the millions of really poor families in the US. I believe the cutoff should be reduced to $100,000 and the payout amount based on a reverse distribution basis: the less your earned income, the higher the rebate. The best way to ensure that the economy is stimulated is to give the money to the people most likely to spend it immediately.

LATEST INFORMATION ON ABORTIONS IN AMERICA

The number if abortions in the US dropped to 1.2 million in 2005, the lowest number since 1974, the year the Supreme Court legalized abortions and 400,000 less that the in the peak of 1.6 million abortions in 1990. An analysis of the 2005 report on abortions yields some important data on what women who are, and who are not, getting abortions.

Teenagers made up only 17% of all abortions in 2005. Over 50% of the women getting abortions were over 25 years of age and 60% of them already had one child. African-American and Hispanic women were disproportionately represented, with African-Americans, 13% of the US population, representing 35% of all abortions, while white women represented almost 55% of women having abortions.

Economic issues were cited by many women as playing a major role in their decision to have an abortion. Women living at or below the poverty level were more than four times likely to have abortions than women with moderate or affluent income levels. Increasing individual and family incomes would certainly have a positive effect on the number of abortions. In 2004, for example, 50% of all Federal income tax returns reported income of $30,000 or less and 70% reported incomes of $50, 000 or less. Within the 62.5 million tax filers reporting income of $30,000 or less in 2004, 42 million had so little income they had no Federal income tax liability, and the average income of the 62.5 million tax filers in this group was $14.149. In 2004, 25% of women having abortions said their decision was based on the fact that they could not afford another child. I have posted below several links to articles on this subject.

Since the biggest single predictor of future income is the number of years of education, one of the best ways of increasing the decline in the number of abortions is to find ways to get teens to stay in high school, graduate and attend college or some form of vocational training that will increase their income, especially young women.

The other major factor that is involved in the problem of unintended pregnancies and the resulting abortion is the lack of a sense of personal responsibility. It’s like the weather, everyone talks about it, but no one seems to know what to do about it. When I attended high school from 1954 to 1958 I can only recall one out of wedlock pregnancy, and that boy and girl, seniors, were forced by their parents to quit school and get married. There have been so many major social and economic changes in our nation since 1960 that our culture has fundamentally shifted and the whole concept of personal responsibility has radically changed as the result.

In my work with teenagers and their parents as a therapist one of my major objectives was to educate and model the important role of personal responsibility and its connection to building a secure future through education, delayed gratification, forethought and planning. The clear message that the pathway to secure adulthood was the avoidance of involvement with alcohol, drugs, violence and not becoming parents before your education is completed and you are married.

My efforts on these subjects where thwarted by two major factors: the inability or unwillingness of the kid’s parents to reinforce and model my messages and the influence of our consumer and entertainment society which sends messages to the teens to live for the moment, act and spend impulsively and not worry about tomorrow. These moms and dads were not bad people; they were simply overwhelmed with trying to earn enough money to pay for the basic necessities of life, drastically reducing the amount of time for parental supervision and guidance. The result was that the major influences on their kid’s lives were their own peer groups and our consumer economy that encourages them to reject every attitude and behavior that are the foundation of providing them with a secure future.

Americans are famous for proposing simple solutions to complex problems. I once attended a presentation on a new approach to solving the problems with out young people: character education. The basic approach was an educational program for kids that would teach them how to develop character traits that embody values, behaviors and beliefs that would allow them to avoid the pitfalls I have detailed above.

I watched as a number of presenters detailed how the character development program would be presented in classroom settings. At the end of the presentation we were allowed to ask questions about the program. I posed the following question: given the influence of family and our society on kids can we realistically expect substantial numbers of children to essentially reject or ignore the values and behaviors they live with and experience 24/7 and develop the character traits we desire? In short, can we expect masses of children to have better “characters” than their parents?

Several of the presenters rose to defend the program and declared that the program could do exactly that. One presenter, who understood the implications of my question, agreed that it was unlikely that substantial number of kids exposed to the character development program would change their values and behaviors. In other words, adults, as a group, cannot expect their kids, as a group, to be any better than they are. We can certainly influence individual kids to adopt better behaviors and values, but we have to change our cultural values to influence our children as a group. As adults, we must first change our behaviors in order to change our children’s behaviors.

Our abortion rate is the result of many different cultural factors. We need to look to other developed nations like the Netherlands, France, and the UK to emulate their successful programs in reducing the abortion rate. Many people believe that reversing Roe V Wade will stop abortions, but that action would simply move the issue to the fifty states. Seventeen states had already legalized some abortions prior to Roe V Wade and performed over 700,000 abortions in 1973. Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is proposing a Constitutional amendment to ban abortions, but even if such as proposal was passed out of Congress by the required two-thirds majority of both Houses, something that is currently unlikely, it would require ratification by thirty-eight of the fifty state legislatures.

A more effective approach to reducing the number of abortions is to attack the root causes; lack of education, better access to contraceptives, poverty and inadequate family incomes and the importance of the role of personal responsibility to teens and adults alike. In spite of recent success in reducing the number of abortions, the US still has the highest abortion rate in the developed world. We will take a hard look in the mirror and find out what we must change in ourselves before we can find solutions to this issue.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22689931/page/2/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22250633/

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/presskits/2005/06/28/abortionoverview.html

MEETING SCHEDULE

February Monthly Meeting: It’s the annual Chili Night at the home of Lee Dietz on February 24^th at 5PM. Lee lives at 21 Walnut Street in Greenville, SC. Three varieties of chili will be prepared. Please call Lee at (864) 233-0905 for a suggestion on what you can bring to make the meal complete. Hope to see everyone there.

March Brunch: The time and place of the March Brunch will be announced by email and posted on the website.