"Do you think a millionaire should pay more taxes than a bus driver?" says... Reagan

New pro-Obama ad attacks Republican tax cuts for the wealthy by quoting an unexpected source.

What do Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama have in common? You might not think that much -- but a new ad by a pro-Obama group uses the Republican icon's words to hammer home a point about the GOP's dedication to tax cuts for the wealthy.

The 30-second Youtube video by Super PAC, Priorities USA features Reagan stating that taxing a bus driver 10 per cent of his salary, while not taxing the "truly wealthy" is "crazy".

The video opens with a man as a news anchor. "So far the Republicans support taxing the middle class instead of the wealthy; one Republican disagrees."

Video footage of Ronald Reagan giving a June 6, 1985 speech at Northside High School in Atlanta, Georgia follows. Reagan says in the speech:

We are going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. They sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing when a bus driver was paying 10 per cent of his salary and that's crazy. Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more taxes than the bus driver?

Priorites USA and Priorities USA Action were formed by Bill Burton, Barack Obama's former deputy press secretary and Sean Sweeney, a senior adviser to Rahm Emanuel, Obama's first chief of staff. The SuperPAC which started airing television ads in early July as a response to $20 million SuperPAC Crossroads GPS ads, has fervently criticised GOP candidates on issues such as tax cuts and deregulation.

A statement on their website reads: "At Priorities USA Action, we believe the stakes for protecting our country's core values have never been higher as the far right pursues an agenda that rewards only the wealthiest few at the expense of middle class families."

The SuperPAC's favourite target seems to be Mitt Romney. They have a released a series of ads criticising his policies including: "Mitt Romney's America", where they paint a picture of what would happen, in their opinion, if Romney got elected president, and "Portraits", that criticises the Republican GOP candidates' ads blaming President Obama for the economy as "politics at its worst".

The latest video appears to be taking a shot at a recent Romney campaign ad titled "The right answer", in which he says: "I'm in favour of cutting spending capping federal spending as a percentage of GDP at 20 per cent or less and having a balanced budget, amendment. The right answer for America is to stop the growth of the federal government and to start the growth of the private sector."

 

Show Hide image

France’s burkini ban could not come at a worse time

Yet more legislation against veiled women can only further divide an already divided nation.

Since mayor of Cannes David Lisnard banned the full-body burkini from his town’s beaches, as many as 15 French resorts have followed suit. Arguments defending the bans fall into three main categories. First, it is about defending the French state’s secularism (laïcité). Second, that the costume represents a misogynistic doctrine that sees female bodies as shameful. And finally, that the burkini is cited as a threat to public order.

None of these arguments satisfactorily refute the claims of civil rights activists that the bans are fundamentally Islamophobic.

The niceties of laïcité

The Cannes decree explicitly invokes secular values. It prohibits anyone “not dressed in a fashion respectful of laïcité” from accessing public beaches. However, the French state has only banned “ostentatious” religious symbols in schools and for government employees as part of laïcité (the strict separation between the state and religious society). And in public spaces, laïcité claims to respect religious plurality. Indeed, the Laïcité Commission has tweeted that the ban, therefore, “cannot be based upon the principle of laïcité”.

While veils covering the entire face such as the burqa or niqab are illegal, this is not to protect laïcité; it is a security matter. The legal justification is that these clothes make it impossible to identify the person underneath – which is not the case for the burkini.

 

By falling back on laïcité to police Muslim women in this way, the Cannes authorities are fuelling the argument that “fundamentalist secularism” has become a means of excluding Muslims from French society.

Colonial attitudes

Others, such as Laurence Rossignol, the minister for women’s rights, hold that the burkini represents a “profoundly archaic view of a woman’s place in society”, disregarding Muslim women who claim to wear their burkini voluntarily.

This typifies an enduring colonial attitude among many non-Muslim French politicians, who feel entitled to dictate to Muslim women what is in their best interests. Rossignol has in the past compared women who wear headscarves through choice to American “negroes” who supported slavery.

Far from supporting women’s rights, banning the burkini will only leave the women who wear it feeling persecuted. Even those with no choice in the matter are not helped by the ban. This legal measure does nothing to challenge patriarchal authority over female bodies in the home. Instead, it further restricts the lives of veiled women by replacing it with state authority in public.

Open Islamophobia

Supporters of the ban have also claimed that, with racial tensions high after recent terrorist attacks, it is provocative to wear this form of Muslim clothing. Such an argument was made by Pierre-Ange Vivoni, mayor of Sisco in Corsica, when he banned the burkini in his commune. Early reports suggested a violent clash between local residents and non-locals of Moroccan origin was triggered when strangers photographed a burkini-wearing woman in the latter group, which angered her male companions. Vivoni claimed that banning the costume protected the security of local people, including those of North African descent.

Those reports have transpired to be false: none of the women in question were even wearing a burkini at the time of the incident. Nonetheless, the ban has stood in Sisco and elsewhere.

To be “provoked” by the burkini is to be provoked by the visibility of Muslims. Banning it on this basis punishes Muslim women for other people’s prejudice. It also disregards the burkini’s potential to promote social cohesion by giving veiled women access to the same spaces as their non-Muslim compatriots.

Appeals to public order have, occasionally, been openly Islamophobic. Thierry Migoule, head of municipal services in Cannes, claimed that the burkini “refers to an allegiance to terrorist movements”, conveniently ignoring the Muslim victims of recent attacks. Barely a month after Muslims paying their respects to friends and family killed in Nice were racially abused, such comments are both distasteful and irresponsible.

Increased divisions

Feiza Ben Mohammed, spokesperson for the Federation of Southern Muslims, fears that stigmatising Muslims in this way will play into the hands of IS recruiters. That fear seems well-founded: researchers cite a sense of exclusion as a factor behind the radicalisation of a minority of French Muslims. Measures like this can only exacerbate that problem. Indeed, provoking repressive measures against European Muslims to cultivate such a sentiment is part of the IS strategy.

Meanwhile, the day after the incident in Sisco, riot police were needed in nearby Bastia to prevent a 200-strong crowd chanting “this is our home” from entering a neighbourhood with many residents of North African descent. Given the recent warning from France’s head of internal security of the risk of a confrontation between “the extreme right and the Muslim world”, such scenes are equally concerning.

Now more than ever, France needs unity. Yet more legislation against veiled women can only further divide an already divided nation.

The Conversation

Fraser McQueen, PhD Candidate, University of Stirling

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.