OurFuture.org Blogs: Corinne Ramey

Immigration Raids at Casa Fiesta

Corinne Ramey — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:22:42 -0700

When I was a student at Oberlin College, Casa Fiesta was one of the most popular hangout spots in that small, Midwestern town. Best known for their margaritas, fajitas, and endless supply of free tortilla chips, the Mexican restaurant was always packed with students, townspeople, and professors. It was located just kitty-corner from the house where I lived, so close that sometimes I would always catch a whiff of frying garlic and onions when I walked to and from class.

But that may all have changed at about 11 am this Wednesday, when Immigrations and Custom Enforcement (ICE) officials made a series of arrests at the Casa Fiesta in Oberlin and in Casa Fiestas in Ashland, Fremont, Norwalk, Oregon, Sandusky, Vermillion and Youngstown, Ohio. Overall, 58 immigrants were arrested, although three women were eventually let go. However, they will still be required to appear before a federal immigration judge. According to ICE spokesman Greg Palmore, the immigrants -- all Mexican citizens -- are likely to be deported as soon as possible.

The Casa Fiesta arrests are just the latest in what has become a disturbing pattern of workplace raids by ICE. In Postville, Iowa, this past May, ICE arrested over 400 workers at a kosher meat plant, Agriprocessors, Inc. Other raids have been carried out at restaurants, plants, and workplaces in Texas, California, and across the nation. According to Reuters, "ICE said it had made 949 criminal arrests in worksite-related raids since October 2007, including the arrests of 105 owners, managers, supervisors or human resources employees who face charges ranging from harboring to knowingly hiring illegal aliens."

However, the impact of these raids extends way beyond the 949 arrests. They impact the lives of the immigrants' families, children, and homes. They extend to the children who fear ICE arrests when they go to school, families who are impacted by raids for life, and to the communities where they live. As David Leopold, a Cleveland immigration lawyer, said of the Casa Fiesta workers, "These people are not criminals. The worst thing you can say about them is they came here to feed their families."

Within these communities, both immigrants and non-immigrants have felt the effects of the raids. Restaurants have been shut down and family businesses have closed. Churches have lost their members, and businesses and factories struggle for workers. For example, after the Iowa raids the town struggled to recover:

The tiny northeast town was home to the nation's largest kosher meatpacker, which recently lost nearly half of its work force after a huge raid by immigration officials. The raid sent shockwaves through the town, which has served as a multicultural model...But after the raid, many here are wondering if the future of the town is in jeopardy. Some 2,300 people lived in Postville before the raid; about half of them were Hispanic.

Our country is economically reliant on immigrants. Immigrants pay taxes -- between 1996 and 2003 alone, undocumented immigrants alone contributed nearly $50 billion in taxes -- and contribute to our struggling social security system. They increase consumer demand and generate economic growth. In 2004, the expansion of Hispanic and Asian-American consumer markets was an estimated 12% of America's purchasing power. Raids like the one in Oberlin aren't just bad for the immigrants themselves or for all those college students who will be missing their Mexican food -- immigration raids are bad for the nation as a whole.

McCain and the Manhattan Institute Fail to Defend Offshore Drilling

Corinne Ramey — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:34:25 -0700

All those big oil and gas supporters must be feeling threatened. On Thursday, Al Gore issued a challenge for America to produce 100 percent of its electricity from renewable energy and carbon-free sources within the next 10 years, and repeated the challenge again at Netroots Nation over the weekend.

Now conservatives are hitting back by playing on the realities of high fuel costs and the fears of even higher costs in the future. John McCain introduced a new advertisement called "The Pump," that suggests that Obama is responsible for high gas prices. "Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?" the ads asks, as a crowd in the background shouts, "Obama, Obama!" As hopeful music plays in the background, the ad continues, "One man knows we must now drill more in America and rescue our family budgets."

In an op-ed in the New York Sun today, Charles Sahm of the Manhattan Institute argues for offshore drilling, backing up his argument with questionable premises including that fact that Brazil does it, so it must be ok, and that a Zogby poll found 74% of Americans support offshore drilling. (You know that if the public thinks it's a good idea, then it must be so. So much for the fact that most respondents probably just want lower gas prices.)

It seems that McCain and the Manhattan Institute need to do their fact checking. Conservatives repeatedly have touted offshore drilling as a quick solution, the magic bullet that would bring back our cheap gas. "The country will need to pursue all energy options in the years ahead," writes Sahm. "...For the foreseeable future, however, oil and natural gas will remain a major part of our overall energy picture." McCain concurs, saying that lifting the ban on off-shore drilling "would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis."

Unfortunately for him, this just isn't true. Oil exploration and drilling takes years, and experts agree (check out this HuffPo survey of economists on the drilling ban) that the ban would have no impact for several decades, and at that point only a minor one. Even Guy Caruso, the head of the Energy Information Administration who was appointed by Bush, said that the price decrease was likely to be "muted" because "It does take a long time to develop those resources." For a great analysis of why offshore drilling is unlikely to be profitable and why the oil industry currently has plenty of undiscovered oil to tap into, check out Joseph Romm's post on Grist.

Strangely enough, McCain admitted that offshore drilling was pretty much worthless only a month ago during a campaign stop in Wisconsin. "[W]ith those resources, which would take years to develop, you would only postpone or temporarily relieve our dependency on fossil fuels," McCain said. And in 1999, while running for president, McCain said just as much when he claimed that it was the "special interests in Washington" that wanted offshore drilling. At point, McCain supported the moratorium.

So where's the straight talk now, Mr. McCain?

"Clean Coal" Plant Scrapped for Financial Reasons

Corinne Ramey — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:32:56 -0700

It's not news that "clean coal" isn't, well, clean. But clean coal made the news today not for environmental reasons but for financial ones when the New York Power Authority scrapped its plans for the Huntley plant, a "clean coal" facility in western New York State. From Crain's Business News:

NYPA officials say the electricity produced by the Huntley plant, in Tonawanda, N.Y., would be too expensive, requiring some $150 million a year in subsidies to compete with more conventional sources of generation. In a letter to New Jersey-based NRG Energy, which owns the Huntley plant, NYPA executives said they were not able to overcome the "substantial" financial hurdles.

The announcement calls into doubt the construction of a similar clean coal plant in Jamestown, New York, which is supposed to receive $6 million in state funding.

Hypothetically, "clean coal" plants work by capturing greenhouse gases emitted by coal plants and burying them underground so that the gases won't be released into the atmosphere. Also called Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC), these plants have the ability to separate the CO2 so that it won't contribute to global warming. However, "clean coal" plants still bring with them a whole host of environmental issues, including the environmental devastation of mountains, hillsides, and rural areas caused by regular coal mining. Because techniques of burying CO2 have yet to be sufficiently tested, it is unclear whether buried CO2 could leak into groundwater and cause contamination.

David Roberts wrote about the high environmental and financial costs of clean coal on TomPaine.com,

IGCC technology is substantially more expensive than traditional coal plants. Sequestration, which is highly speculative, adds another 30-60 percent to the cost, along with huge new demands for energy and water. Meaningful commercialization and deployment are likely decades away. Even if that bright day arrives, "clean coal" still involves the environmental devastation of coal mining, the generation of substantial mercury and particulate pollution, and a per-kilowatt energy costs no better than wind and far worse than energy efficiency.

The New York Power Authority isn't the first federal agency to realize the prohibitive costs of clean coal technology. Joseph Romm writes on Grist that the Government Accountability Agency estimates that "clean coal" could be prohibitively costly.

The GAO predicts that electricity from clean coal plants will cost up to 78% more than electricity from conventional coal plants, not counting carbon pricing. Clean coal will require construction of pipelines to move carbon from the power plant to the sequestration site, and permanent monitoring, which means extra cost. Meantime, DOE's goals (PDF) are to bring the cost of low-speed wind power down to 3.6 cents a kilowatt hour by 2012, geothermal electricity down to 3-5 cents by 2010, and photovoltaic electricity down to 5-10 cents by 2015. By the time clean coal is market-ready, will it be cost-competitive?

Clearly, having clean, renewable energy is a concern for the future. But why waste our time, money, and energy on "cleaning" up the coal industry when that money could be better spent on less environmentally destructive and cheaper renewable sources?

Can We Talk About Poverty?

Corinne Ramey — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:36:21 -0700

Last Wednesday, I saw John Edwards speak at the Yorkville Common Pantry, a food pantry and soup kitchen in Harlem. After walking into the building, I found myself in the back of a small press conference, just a few feet from Edwards. The beginning of the press conference started out as expected -- he talked about Half in Ten, his anti-poverty campaign to reduce poverty in America by half within the next ten years, and praised the food pantry for their work in New York City. But after his five minute speech, when it was time for questions from the press, the subject quickly turned away from poverty.

Although Edwards tried his best to talk about poverty, the press just didn't seem to care. Instead, their questions focused almost exclusively on the presidential campaign. If Obama offers you a position as attorney general, will you take it? Is it mere coincidence that you're in New York City within 48 hours of Obama and Clinton's joint appearance here? Do you think that Obama is moving towards the center, and do you support that?

In other words, the press was there to see John Edwards. Poverty? You wouldn't have even guessed that's what the event was about.

But despite the mainstream media's indifference, poverty matters. According to the Center for American Progress Task Force on Poverty, one in eight Americans currently lives in poverty. That's using the federal definition of the poverty line -- less than $19,971 per year for a family of four. About 31% of Americans live below 200% of the poverty line. Inequality is at record levels, and the U.S. has higher poverty levels than other developed countries.

CAP's report, "From Poverty to Prosperity: A National Strategy to Cut Poverty in Half," offers a variety of suggestions to decrease poverty. The suggestions run from increasing the minimum wage to passing the Employee Free Choice Act. They suggest increasing federal support for childcare assistance, increasing Pell Grants, and promoting equitable development of cities. The cost of the plan -- they estimate $90 billion -- would be paid for by rolling back Bush's tax cuts on people who make over $200,000 a year.

If the reporters at the Yorkville Common Pantry event had been listening, they might have heard Edwards say that when people are lifted out of poverty and into the middle class America becomes stronger. They might have heard him talk about plans for making food stamp information available over the Internet, making work and education an important part of getting rid of poverty, and importance of integrating affordable housing into the infrastructure of cities and urban areas.

But they weren't really listening.

Biking home from the event, I got stuck at a long traffic light. I glanced at the enormous Hybird Chevy Tahoe just a foot to the right of my bike and peered through the dark tinted windows. Edwards sat inside, looking thoughtful and ponderous. I almost felt bad for the guy. Can you really effect change if you can't get the mainstream media to care? Edwards had called poverty "the cause of my life," but can he really start that conversation if nobody's listening?

Would McCain Support Pro-Life Pharmaicies?

Corinne Ramey — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 06:57:00 -0700

You walk into a pharmacy and pass the pain relievers, deodorants, and shampoos. But when you get to the spot where the condoms normally are shelved, there's nothing. And don't even think about asking to fill a prescription for birth control pills -- you'll get turned away and frowned upon in no time.

Where are you? A "pro-choice" pharmacy.

A story in yesterday's Washington Post chronicles the growing movement of "pro-life" pharmacies -- pharmacies that choose not to stock condoms and not to fill prescriptions for the "morning-after" pill, birth control pills and other standard varieties of contraception. The pharmacists and owners of these stores claim that they have the right to not stock products that they find objectionable, and that using standard contraception is tantamount to having an abortion. According to the article,

The most common, widely publicized conflicts have involved pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills, morning-after pills and other forms of contraception. They say they believe that such methods can cause what amounts to an abortion and that the contraceptives promote promiscuity, divorce, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and other societal woes. The result has been confrontations that have left women traumatized and resulted in pharmacists being fired, fined or reprimanded.

At first glance, this seems somewhat acceptable -- after all, stores have the right to stock the products that they like, and there are usually other pharmacies available. But it's not that simple. These pharmacies don't advertise their "pro-life" status, and when a woman walks in to a pharmacy to fill a prescription for the morning-after pill, the last thing she needs is to be told that she's killing a fetus and get yelled at about her lifestyle choices. There have been instances of pharmacists ripping up prescriptions for birth control pills (because, yes, says the Pharmacists for Life International website, the "pill kills") and humiliating women seeking contraception. "Rape victims could end up in a pharmacy not understanding this pharmacy will not meet their needs," said Marcia Greenberger of the National Women's Law Center in the Post. "We've seen an alarming development of pharmacists over the last several years refusing to fill prescriptions, and sometimes even taking the prescription from the woman and refusing to give it back to her so she can fill it in another pharmacy." These pharmacies could be especially problematic in rural areas of the country, where there are not always alternatives.

After reading this article on Monday, I had a sinking feeling that it sounded vaguely familiar. Although I've never been in a pro-life pharmacy, last week I watched several videos from Brave New Films about the "McCain Clinic" -- spoofs on what a women's clinic would be like if McCain were president. In one, a customer asks for information on STDs and the pharmacist hands her a flyer with the words "DON'T HAVE SEX." In another, the receptionist hands a woman a blank sheet of paper with her "birth control options."

So is McCain's record on reproductive rights really as bad as Brave New Films makes it out to be? He hasn't started any "McCain clinics" staffed with annoying, fingernail-tapping receptionists, but he has accumulated an impressively bad voting record, and proudly bragged that he's received a score of zero from NARAL. A bit of McCain's voting record from a terrific article by Arianna Huffington:

He has repeatedly voted to deny low-income women access to abortion care except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life (although McCain is now wavering on trying to put these exceptions into the party platform).

He voted to shut down the Title X family-planning program, which provides millions of women with health care services ranging from birth control to breast cancer screenings.

He voted against legislation that established criminal and civil penalties for those who use threats and violence to keep women from gaining access to reproductive health clinics.

He voted to uphold the policy that bans overseas health clinics from receiving aid from America if they use their own funds to provide legal abortion services or even adopt a pro-choice position.

Given this voting record, I suspect that McCain would support these pro-life pharmacies. And on the subject of those pro-life pharmacies, apparently some of them stock Viagra. Anyone else see the irony here?

ICE's Newest Trick: Deporting High School Valedictorians

Corinne Ramey — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:13:27 -0700

I've written about U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials' schoolyard antics before, but the recent news that ICE is planning to deport a California high school valedictorian just affirms my view that these immigration authorities need to get out of the schools. From the San Francisco Chronicle:

The valedictorian at Fresno's Bullard High School won't be attending college in the United States this fall because he's scheduled to be deported.
Seventeen-year-old Arthur Mkoyan's 4.0 grade-point average qualified him to enter one of the state's top universities. But he and his mother have been ordered back to Armenia after their last appeal for asylum failed. The family fled from what used to be part of the Soviet Union and has been seeking asylum since 1992.

But, rest assured, ICE shows its nice side once in a while (and if it's not clear, I'm being sarcastic here). As a sort of consolation prize, ICE decided to let Arthur stick around for graduation. According to the article, "A spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement says they were given an extension until June 20 so Mkoyan could attend his graduation ceremony."

This past October, the Senate tried to help out students like Arthur, but to no avail. Legislation called the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act -- better know as the DREAM Act -- was introduced in the Senate, but failed a procedural vote. The legislation would have allowed Arthur and approximately 65,000 other undocumented students a path to citizenship and the opportunity for a college education. But unfortunately for Arthur, the legislation failed.

Arthur's story and that of the DREAM Act are just two examples of what amounts to an utterly inconsistent immigration policy. Whether ICE wants to admit it or not, undocumented immigrants are here to stay, and an enforcement-only policy that consists of random deportations just isn't going to cut it. According to a recently-released report by the Public Policy Institute of California, Immigrant Pathways to Legal Permanent Residence: Now and Under a Merit-Based System, more than half of the immigrants in California who have legal permanent resident status were at some point undocumented. This number is 42% for the U.S. as a whole. These immigrants -- both documented and undocumented -- are a vital part of the nation's economy and the fabric of our nation. Deporting smart students like Arthur -- especially considering that such a huge percentage of immigrants eventually receive legal status -- is not only bad for the immigrant community, but for the nation as a whole.

For a slightly happier immigration story, check out this video of DMI scholar and Mexican immigrant Samantha Contreras. Samantha was undocumented when she graduated from high school, and soon realized the hardships associated with being undocumented.. "I learned the reality of my immigration status," she said. "I couldn't work, I couldn't go to college, I couldn't drive, I couldn't even get a Blockbuster membership card." Unlike Arthur's story, Samantha's has a happy ending -- an immigrant rights group helped her to enroll in college, and now she strives for a career in public policy.

Immigration Officials Turn to Schoolyard Bullying

Corinne Ramey — Thu, 08 May 2008 13:04:08 -0700

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials in California have stooped to a new, almost unbelievable low: intimidating schoolchildren.

Allow me to state the obvious: schools should be safe. And they should feel safe for the kids, their parents, and the teachers and staff who work there. But for the students at four Oakland schools and Berkley High School on Wednesday, school felt anything but safe. That day, rumors spread throughout the schools that ICE were nearby, possibly planning raids at the schools. Parents text-messaged their kids, warning them that ICE agents were close by so that the undocumented parents couldn't come to the schools to pick their children up. The Berkley school district became so overwhelmed with calls that they set up an automated voice message for parents, which according to the San Francisco Chronicle, stated that the administration would "not allow any child to be taken away from the school." The schools -- including Stonehurst Elementary, where immigration officials were parked across the street -- became a panic scene. Undocumented parents called friends and neighbors, asking them to pick up their children since the parents were afraid to come near the school. ICE spokespeople claimed that their intention was not to raid the schools but rather to make arrests at nearby locations.

Unfortunately, yesterday's Berkley and Oakland cases are not isolated incidents. ICE agents have routinely engaged in intimidation of workers -- both documented and undocumented -- and students. In Tucson, Arizona, a 17-year-old undocumented student at Catalina High Magnet School was arrested for possession of marijuana. Police came to the school, and then called the Border Control. When Border Control found out that the student was undocumented, they deported his father, who returned to Mexico accompanied by his wife and two sons.

The incident created an outrage in the school and community. The teenagers quoted in the Tucson Citizen article about the event state the facts that the adults around were apparently missing. "We think that shouldn't be allowed, because school is where we're supposed to be safe," said 16-year-old Mario Portillo. "No matter if you're an illegal alien, you have the right to an education." Eighteen-year-old Jorge Guerrero asked the somewhat obvious question, "How can we learn if we've scared the Border Patrol is going to come for us?" Araceli Sanchez, 14, said that she knew that the arrested student and his family were undocumented, but said that "he was just another student." And it was up to 14-year-old Ener Lopez to state the really obvious. "We should be safe in school," he said. Following a protest by more than 100 students in front of the Tucson Police Department headquarters, Tucson police have said that they will no longer call U.S. Border Patrol into schools or churches.

More recently, ICE agents in the raided 11 Taqueria El Balazo restaurants in the Bay Area, detaining 63 immigrant workers, including two 17-year-olds and a 15-year-old. Given the recent May Day protests by immigrant rights groups, it's unlikely that the timing of the raid was a mere coincidence. As Larisa Casillas, director of Bay Area Immigrant Rights Coalition, said, “I don’t think it is a coincidence that this happened a day after May Day. It wreaks havoc on the community." She sees the target as a strategic one. “When they hit a popular taqueria with a series of raids it sends a message, and our message back is that we need immigration reform. These are people who are working and contributing to the economic health of our region,” she said.

Casillas, I think, hits the nail on the head. Not only are these incidents -- both the school and taqueria raids -- likely part of a purposeful campaign to intimidate the Latino community, but in both cases the intimidation is bad not just for undocumented workers but for their communities at large. School raids cause widespread fear among students, parents, and teachers, and, at the very least, cause serious disruption in the ability of students to learn and feel safe in what should be a guaranteed safe environment. And, as Casillas says, immigrants -- even undocumented ones -- are vital to the economies of the regions where they live.

Immigrants make up 15% of the civilian workforce, and account for half of the labor force growth in the past 10 years, according to a White House report. They pay a significant amount of taxes and produce goods and provide services that are vital to the American middle class. They're vital to keeping our social security system afloat, pumping $6-7 billion a year into the Social Security system, most of which they can't claim because of their immigrant status. According to the same White House report, immigrants increase the earnings and productivity of native-born workers a significant amount, estimated at $37 billion a year. The bottom line is, decent, humane treatment of immigrants isn't just good for immigrants -- it's good for the current and aspiring American middle class.

This kind of conduct by ICE is incredibly destructive to families as well. If schools continue to be a scene of ICE intimidation, undocumented parents are less likely to send their native-born children to school, fearing that raids could result in families being deported. With immigrant families already being hit hard by the current recession and recent crackdowns on undocumented workers -- according to a recent Times article, remittances to Latin America have dropped significantly, yet another sign of the economic squeeze on immigrant families -- worries about deportation because of their kids attending schools are the last thing that immigrant families need.

Notably, it's not all bad. When reading news reports of the raids, in between all the eye-rolling at the fairly inane things that ICE agents said, I've been impressed by how supportive mayors and local officials have been of immigrant rights. "In my view, that is the ugly side of government," Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums said. "No way children should ever be treated to that kind of harassment and fear." Mayor Dellum said that Oakland should be free from raids. "As a sanctuary city," Dellums said, "we're all in unison. We don't want this type of intimidation. Immigrants are human beings, and need to be dealt with respect." Vice Mayor Larry Reid said that local officials were never told about the raids. "ICE just rolls in and tells our police department after the fact," he said. "The students are upset and crying. The school's administration said some of the kids are very shook up."

These local officials get it. When will ICE and the Border Control figure out that schoolyard bullying isn't an effective -- or humane, for that matter -- route to immigration reform?

Happy Tax Day, From a Progressive Perspective

Corinne Ramey — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 05:08:53 -0700

Taxes are one of those things that everybody loves to hate. Tax collectors are the perennial bad guys, a picture of a 1040 form is squeezed between a picture of Hitler and an MRE on the blog StuffNobodyLikes, and the certainty of death and taxes is widely agreed upon. The Beatles, angered by the high tax rate in England, even wrote a song about taxes (which, allegedly, some post offices actually play on April 15). "If you drive a car, I'll tax the street; If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat," sings George Harrison. Of course, this doesn't acknowledge the fact that taxes made the road possible.

But taxes, when viewed from a progressive perspective, just ain't so bad. Taxes have funded our highways, our roads, and our infrastructure. They've funded scientific development, the courts, communication systems, firefighters and and water supplies. They fund the FDA to keep our food and drugs safe, public education, and public health and emergency services. Simply put, taxes are what has enabled this country to grow, function, and succeed.

In fact, taxes have in many ways made the United States what it is today and (gasp) even made it possible for the rich to succeed and get richer. As George Lakoff and Bruce Budner wrote on TomPaine.com, it's not just the poor and middle class, but the rich who have benefited from taxes as well.

"Consider Bill Gates. He started Microsoft as a college dropout and has become the world's richest person. Though he has undoubtedly benefited from his unusual intelligence and business acumen, he could not have created or sustained his personal wealth without the common wealth. The legal system protected Microsoft's intellectual property and contracts. The tax-supported financial infrastructure enabled him to access capital markets and trade his stock in a market in which investors have confidence. He built his company with many employees educated in public schools and universities. Tax-funded research helped develop computer science and the internet. Trade laws negotiated and enforced by the government protect his ability to sell his products abroad. These are but a few of the ways in which Mr. Gates' accumulation of wealth was empowered by the common wealth and by taxation."

Although taxes didn't create Gates' wealth, they certainly allowed him, and millions of others, to succeed. "We think of taxes as investments that give us dividends," writes the Rockridge Institute.

Part of changing the public perspective on taxes, though, isn't just realizing all the good that taxes have brought about. We need to reframe the debate, using positive, progressive language to talk about taxes. We need to drop the phrase "tax relief" and replace it with "tax equity." We need to talk about taxes as what has driven, and not destroyed, our economy.

Granted, the current tax system -- and the way that taxpayer money is being spent -- is far from perfect. An article in yesterday's Times notes that a conservative estimate of the amount of money spent on the Iraq War would cover the cost of Hillary Clinton's universal health care plan or Barack Obama's health plan and proposal to help people facing foreclosure. And even the super-rich Warren Buffet -- who says that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary -- admits that the tax code needs some help. "The taxation system has tilted towards the rich and away from the middle class," he says in this video.

Robert Borosage and Celinda Lake write about a more progressive tax code in The American Prospect:

"Simplify the tax code and make it more progressive. Tax income on wealth at the same rate as income on work. Give low-wage and middle-income earners a break while raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations. Invest in areas vital to our economy. That would help generate demand and produce jobs here at home rather than chasing them overseas."

And it's not just the federal tax system that needs some help. As Amy Traub has written, New York state's tax system needs a serious overhaul. She writes,

"The fact is, New York is the most unequal state in the country, and our regressive tax system only makes things worse. We’ve been cutting taxes for high-income households for years and now we’ve got a gaping budget shortfall. Raising taxes on the less-than-half-a-percent of New Yorkers who benefited most from the state’s economic good times is the least we can do."

So, when you write out your check to the IRS this year or stand in a mile-long post office line, remember that although filling out forms and waiting in lines isn't any fun, that taxes themselves are, in fact, a good thing. If only George Harrison was still around to rewrite "Taxman" from a more progressive perspective...