A few highlights, a note, and the full text from the Washington Post after the jump…
If scarcity is a myth, then poverty is not necessary. America need not have 37 million Americans living below the poverty line. It is a choice. Hunger is a choice. Exclusion of the stranger, the immigrant, or the darker other is a choice.
We can choose generosity. In America today, we spend more on health care than any other industrialized nation, yet 46 Million people have none. Canada spends half of what we spend and covers everyone. Perfectly? Of course not. But adequately. That’s more than what a lot of people have right now.
I do not blame my critics for subscribing to a politics of scarcity and intolerance. However, I believe we all must project a new politics of generosity and inclusion This is the vision of the diverse coalition in my Congressional district.
My constituents in Minnesota elected me to fight for a new politics in which a loving nation guarantees health care for all of its people; a new politics in which executive pay may not skyrocket while workers do not have enough to care for their families. I was elected to articulate a new politics in which no one is cut out of the American dream, not immigrants, not gays, not poor people, not even a Muslim committed to serve his nation.
Editor’s note: I would like to thank Congressman Ellison - for articulating your understanding of why the voters in the 5th elected you. Your eloquence reinforces my confidence that as you proceed with your first of what will undoubtedly be many terms, you will keep the values and principles of your candidacy in mind.
May peace remain your guiding principle Congressman, and by the way - I saw you raising the roof on CNN yesterday. Nice 
Choose Generosity, Not Exclusion
Somewhere in Minneapolis or Jackson or Baltimore, somewhere in America today, there is a young couple that is feeling vulnerable. Maybe one has been laid off due to outsourcing, and maybe, the other is working for something close to a minimum wage. They probably have no medical benefits. Today real income is lower for the typical family than in 2000, while the incomes of the wealthiest families have grown significantly. Things are tough for working people, but in America, we often turn to our faith in tough times.
When our couple shows up for worship service, probably on a Sunday, there is no doubt that the preacher will tell them of God’s unyielding love. “God loves you.” But the next thing the preacher tells them is crucial - not only to the young couple, but to us all. The next message from the preacher may help to shape, not only the next election results, but the political landscape of the nation.
Will the preacher tell our young couple, “God loves you
Loading ...
Once again, Keith shows what a class act he is. Not only has he consistently risen above the misguided and downright silly critics, but now he is articulating a new progressive vision that rejects the “myth of scarcity” while suggesting concrete ways to address fair labor practices, equitable health care needs, and living wages. It was only a matter of time for a better worldview to come along and trump the politics of Hate, Fear and Division. Bravo for the new Left and the new generation of leaders that are beginning to emerge just when this nation needed it most.
The more I hear from Rep Ellison , the more I like. His message of inclusion and love is refreshing. I attended the send-off party last Tuesday it was inspiring. I find it hard to retain my usual cynicism in his presence. The diversity of the attendees reflected the diversity of the 5th CD, all types of people, religions, backgrounds and income levels. I just hope that he can continue to find the inner peace to continue to promote his agenda and not be caught up in partisanship.
Eliison failed to articulate the connection in his talking about government-forced “generosity” by taking other people’s money and putting it to the ends he thinks worthy.
What planet are you from? How many times does history have to repeat itself before cromags like you realize the government was put in place in order to create a more just and equitable existence for the majority, NOT the minority? By the way Einstein, per capita, the middle class in this country pay far more than the wealthy in taxes, when you add in sales tax. Explain to me why a thinking politician should NOT want to raise the financial burden on the wealthy so as to support the middle class more robustly?
I always thought our republic was put in place to protect life, liberty and property.
I can think of a lot of countries we would not want to emmulate that focused on equitable existence rather than protecting property, basic human and civil rights, and the rule of law. For starters, USSR 1917-1990; China 1945-1990; current day Zimbabwe, N. Korea and Cuba.
My view of an “equitable and just” society is one where people can live their lives as they see fit, with equal opportunity for all based on enforceable property rights, the rule of law applied equally and justly, and freedom from government intrusion into their lives (be that in personal or economic pursuits).
I remain amazed that liberals who claim to prize individual rights in speech, in the bedroom, in how citizens are treated by law enforcement and the prison system, etc., have so little respect for economic rights.
And, “Einstein” you might want to re-read and correct your post: the middle class “per capita” does not pay more than the wealthy, let alone far more. Per capita means per person. It’s not even close by that measure. And furthermore the bigger equalizer than sales tax is payroll tax (i.e. SS and Medicare, which are “flat tax”). Anyway, I think you meant to say something along the lines of “as a percentage of their income” not “per capita,” which is still open to manipulation depending on how one defines the “middle class.”
A “thinking politician” should want to increase personal liberty in all areas, and not get involved in “raising financial burdens” on any one class or race or gender of people to support and redistribute to another. Again, almost all of the countries on earth that are comparatively levelized economically are also the poorest and in most instances are also the most totalitarian. You hold up N. Korea as a better model than S. Korea? A government that does not respect economic rights is also quick to move against personal rights as well. There’s an historical correlation to respect for both.
YOu want to talk about financial burdens? I fail to see how someone in the wealthiest 2% is burdened by taxes when you have the middle and lower class that depend on each and every paycheck to get by.
Economic rights? Equal opportunity? When people are poor they have no economic rights and very little opportunity. America will never be the land of opportunity it claims to be as long as we continue to allow wealth to become concentrated in the hands of the few. When you need to work two jobs to get back you have no opportunity to better yourself through education. The American Dream is a fallacy, but it doesn’t have to be. We just need to be willing to level the playing field a little and stop worrying about how those who have everything don’t have enough.
A far more cogent argument than that “government was put in place to create a more just and equitable existence for the majority” — a really absurd and dim view of a government, limitless in its power over lives reminiscent of Lenin.
Like most of this debate, the terms “rich” etc. are never defined. But the argument should not be only over “burden” — the “rich” (defined as $120K/year+, the top 10%) (incidentially the group that supplies many of the jobs/payrolls and capital and ideas that provide benefits for those making less) can be “burdened.” $100K/year for a family of four is not someone swimming in dough. That’s a double-income family of two public school teachers. The “super rich” (say $300K/year, the top 1%) might not be “burdened” as much by higher taxes, true, but if everyone earned the same regardless of what they did which is the end game of a “level” field who would that help? You would get graft, inefficiency, and underground economies, and people dropping out just as under the Soviet system.
But more importantly, my post was about the relationship between economic rights and personal rights. I’m not “burdened” by government censorship much- I don’t own a media outlet, I don’t contribute to politicians, but that doesn’t make burdening such people’s rights just. Taking away a black person’s right to vote isn’t any more right just because it doesn’t “burden” an individual minority voter much to do so.
And the facts from the IRS, of course:
The top 50% pay 96.54% of all income taxes and the top 1% pay more than a third (34.27%). This levelizes some when you include payroll and sales taxes, but we certainly have active progressive taxation bordering on confiscatory. The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the entire bottom 50% and the top 1% are shouldering a roughly 50% higher proportion of the overall income tax burden than they did in 1977.
Boy, talk about cherry-pickin’ information! The top 1% of the US population paying ten times what the bottom 50% pays comes across to you as justified. You are out of your mind. They should be paying AT LEAST 65% in taxes. Furthermore, I said nothing to hint that I am against private property, nor did I mention that I am in favor of the state communism that you are eluding to by mentioning Russia, China, N. Korea, etc. What a simpleton! Why is it that you don’t cite Sweden, Norway, Denmark, or even the UK? All countries with various forms of single payer universal health coverage, plenty of private property, virtually free higher and public education, tremendously higher workplace standards, and on and on and on. The problem with people like you is that you care nothing for social and economic equity, and everything for personal possession. The prime example of American me, me, me society; and the reason we are so hated around the world. It is not our freedom people hate, it our reckless misuse of it.
Keith Ellison at least understands the complexity of these subjects and is unafraid to talk about them. That scares people like you to death, and that is why you will rail against it, no matter how logical the arguments may be.
I pity you. And by the way, you were right, I did mean to focus upon amount paid per annum. I suggest you read a book written back in the 1960s (can’t remember the author’s name) called “the Poor Pay More”. It was the first study of its kind, and it has been respected by academics and laymen alike ever since. Economic rights doesn’t just mean the right to keep money you earn, but the right to earn a decent wage for work performed. There is no reason one has to be anti-capitalist to believe that very simple logic.