Taxes...You Decide!

Over the last couple of years--and especially in this current election season--there's been a lot of talk about taxes: who pays the most, is the current tax structure fair, and do the rich pay their fair share?
I thought I'd let you, the voting American, decide based on the consideration of all relevant factors, including the consideration of average household expenditures (i.e., the cost of living)...

Click on graphic to enlarge

...which portion of the the federal income derive from which particular tax...

Click on graphic to enlarge

...who actually pays taxes...

Click on graphic to enlarge (The often cited Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates "that 46 percent of households will owe no federal income tax for 2011" and Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that "51 percent of households paid no federal income tax in 2009" are, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "anomalies that reflect the unique circumstances of the past few years, when the economic downturn greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes. The figures for 2009 are particularly anomalous; in that year, temporary tax cuts that the 2009 Recovery Act created — including the “Making Work Pay” tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits — were in effect and removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired. Source: "Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes").


...and a few facts about the link between tax cuts and economic growth, using several individual low-tax states as an illustration:

A few states—Alaska, Nevada, Florida, Wyoming, and New Hampshire—impose very low tax rates yet their residents enjoy solid mid-range incomes. Do these states blaze a trail that other states can follow?

Unfortunately these states' success is tough to copy. Both Alaska and Wyoming have abundant and valuable natural resources (energy and minerals) coupled with small populations and little need for public services. Nevada, Florida, and Wyoming benefit greatly from tourism as well. And New Hampshire gets a free ride from Massachusetts-based high tech companies without paying the corresponding taxes.

There are no guarantees when it comes to taxes and economic development. But without abundant natural resources or heavy tourism or the generosity of a neighbor, no state in the United States has been able to sustain high prosperity without a robust tax base (Source: "Do Lower Taxes Create Jobs? Let’s Look at the States?" and the Institute on Taxation and Economy Policy).

Click on graphic to enlarge


Conclusion: Outside of those who subscribe to Keynesian economics, and unless there are a certain economic conditions present, most economic experts assert that tax cuts--in and of themselves--do not directly spur economic growth (which is not to say that under other conditions, they don't have their place. Personally though, I would favor an income increase rather than a tax decrease. Why, because only the working poor would even notice the change.
A February poll by the National Foundation for Credit Counseling showed that 66 percent of workers did not realize their paychecks were larger after the government reduced the payroll tax by 2 percentage points. Source: "Economic Illiteracy: The Candidates' Best Friend.").


OK...here is where you decide...

Read More

Why I'm Not A Democrat...Or Republican! (...Or, "Who Am I?")

In the past week of expressing my opinions in and on various forums around the internet, I have come across a great deal of criticism, mostly from conservatives who accuse me of being a closet liberal (when they pick and chose postings which criticize aspects of their ideology), and of being “self-righteous” when others actually read instances where I slam both ideological branches (thus, not leaving them with a leg to stand on when then cannot accuse me of being “liberal”). And because I’m forced to deal with such narrow-mindedness from the intellectual Peanut Gallery on a daily basis, I thought this would be a great time to express my disdain for both Liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans…and why.
In order to understand why project a certain amount of perceived arrogance in my observations and conclusions, you have to understand a thing or two about my background. Politics were rarely discussed on my house growing up, so there was not the direct influence of traditional political allegiances which tends to shape the thinking of many of my fellow Americans. Growing up as a black male within a fluctuating but limited range of class identities—between lower working-to lower-middle-classes—I came from a mostly single-parent structured household. Most of those around me tended to vote Democrat…with the assumption that my parents did too (although it was not really a certainty). Because of my always shifting economic and social stations, I have had the fortune—or misfortune, depending on one’s perspective—to have lived (or would that be “survive”) a myriad of experiences which helped to shape my outlook and perspectives on a great many issues.
Just to provide a frame of reference for those of you with limited life experiences, I will post a bit of chronology. The day I turned 13, my mother quietly woke me and my siblings up around 4 in the morning, and we were told to quietly bag our clothes, and stole away from the home we had known…leaving our father behind (you do the math) in Michigan, and headed to Chicago, where I was born and raised part of my life. We stayed with relatives, and needless to say, public housing in a large Northern city is nothing like life in gated suburbia (where oddly enough, some people still feel the need to carry guns in such relative tranquility). Later the next couple of years, when my mother was forced—much to her bitter resentment—to accept food stamps, I found myself working alongside my other and younger brother in the fruit and vegetable fields back in Michigan…which is how we would pay the rent, and keep the lights on (to this day, I have nothing but respect for Migrant workers, who we’d peacefully worked side-by-side with). Growing up with economic uncertainty, I’d been forced to take a series of jobs, and to be honest, I thank my lucky stars for having the fortune of learning flexibility. I ended up signing up for the U.S. Army—infantry (when you’re 18 and poor, a $2,000 signing bonus sounds like manna from heaven), working on another farm for another 3 years (enduring the weather extremes alone is enough to make me more arrogant than most people), a series of factory jobs, and then long-term unemployment, courtesy of the late 80s, early 90s recession.
I’d gotten into community volunteering and voter registration during a time when I was particularly depressed about my economic situation, which led to my enrolling in local college courses…with the intent to enter law school and practice Human Rights and Civil Rights law (I was the first and only college graduate in my family, graduating with more honors and academic distinctions than you can shake a stick at. I recall during this time, I how myself and a friend managed to con our way into a closed affair to see the first George Bush. I was also proud to have had dinner with Cornel West in Detroit later in my college tenure). My stint in law school was all-too-brief, much to my regret. But afterwards, I had had a series of other nowhere jobs, including waste hauler, long-term substitute teacher, teacher’s assistant, truck driver (yes, I possess a Commercial Driver’s License), rest area cleaner, janitor, grant writer, and a host of other experiences which life forced me to adapt to via economics. And I am totally leaving out the best, most impacting experiences (such as having been a practicing Buddhist, despite growing up Christian, brief marriage, being victimized by feminism, personal loss, working 2 years as a youth counselor in the woods of the South, temporary homelessness, etc.).
The upshot is that I have lived a rather rich—if not regrettable in some circumstances—life. And as you would expect, having lived such a life where I was not afraid to try new things, step outside my personal comfort zones, and adapt to changing fortunes, I’ve learned to see the world with so much clarity…sans the ideological rhetoric of those who adopt confined political (and social) thinking. And as someone who spends his time writing and reading (while most others are hanging in bars, on dance floors, and basking in dream vacations), who better to make objective observations about life than someone who’s managed to cram the experiences of 2, possibly 3 lifetimes in only 45 years? So, with the background having been laid, allow me to chronicle how my experiences have shaped my outlook on social and political policies—more objectively than I believe most have been.

Democrats:
There is a great bit of truth to the conservative view that the black vote has been taken for granted by Democrats. This is part and parcel of a larger issue that I have with Democrats, namely that the coalition of multiple (group) interests that comprise the Democratic Party leaves the organization politically impotent at times. Affirmative Action is often at odds with the values and beliefs of Middle-Class white voters, especially males. President Obama and the NAACP’s stance on gay marriage has divided black thinking and given support on the issue pause (yes, I am against gay marriage. The black family, as many other families in America has enough problems with dysfunction without having the notion gay marriage try to redefine the definition of a traditional family…please don’t bother posting nasty comments with this regard; it won’t change my mind). Race-baiting (while ignoring personal responsibility)? I could talk about this ad naseum, but since the Republicans do it too (and like with many things, with a great bit more subtlety and style), I will just say that Jesse Jackson can be as every bit of a racial opportunist as Newt Gingrich.
And unquestioned defense of entitlements is a bit problematic for me (entitlements should be limited to the neediest of individuals, not to anyone who shows they have a splinter which keeps them from working).
Liberal attitudes with regard to child-rearing have created a generation of monsters and defiant ne’er-do-wells. For liberal Democrats, the world tends to stop whenever an issue with a child comes up. All logic and reason goes out the window, and emotions take over (not only do I believe in the power of the hickory switch in order to help a child maintain discipline and respect, but that paddlings should be brought back into schools…and no parent should be allowed to sue unless it’s a situation where discipline crosses the line into obvious abuse).
Democrats have to perform more of a balancing act with regard to these often competing interests than Republicans. They have so many individual platforms that they have no general platform whatsoever.
Democrats have terrible selling points (Republican are far better at shaping arguments and selling BS), some I find personally antithetical to clear thinking and a sense of morality, such as the case with abortion. I believe all life to be sacred, and abortion should be outlawed every bit as much as capital punishment (yes, I believe in women's rights, but not at the expense of men' rights. In reproductive policy, men typically have no rights, and are at the mercy of the courts and women motivated purely by self-interests.
Extremist elements within the party have exemplified this by reframing domestic violence as federal hate crime against women [see: The Politicization of Gender of Gender]. Common sense dictates we cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. Placing a higher value on gender, or race, than the ability to make rational decisions is inherently biased, and potentially disastrously. However, rational adults should be allowed to end their life on their own terms in cases of unbearable incapacitation and/or terminal illness.
And despite having grown up among gunplay to the extreme, I still cannot abide by talk or discussion of gun control; I wouldn’t feel safe living in a house without a gun given what I’ve witnessed in life (obviously, lunatics, fanatics, criminals, children, and paranoid-fearful neighborhood watch volunteers should be exempt from gun ownership). Limiting gun ownership will only limit access to legal gun owners...criminals don't follow the laws anyway.
Democrats seem to want to defend to the death the failing American educational system. Our schools lack discipline, partly because irresponsibly apathetic parents are flooding our schools with undisciplined children with distorted, pop-culture-fed values who then infect other children (who actually want to learn). Every child with even a hint of a “disability” (that includes insane “diagnoses” such as Oppositional Defiant Disorder…are you kidding me?) has “rights,” while the children of responsible parents have to content themselves with getting what they can from a day’s instructions because teachers are forced to spend inordinate amounts of time trying to maintain discipline in the classrooms rather than actually teach (want to blame teachers? While granted some are not competent, you try teaching a room full of brats who’s parents think each is individually “special…”).
Liberal attitudes about political correctness go way too far at times (I want to be able to say what I want...when I want...and without censor or sanction. Don’t like what I have to say? TS!).
I’ve always been a rabid proponent of universally affordable health care and I sympathize with aspects of the Occupy movement, but Democrats have failed to sell it properly. They've also failed to seize on the discontent the Occupy movement represents and parlay it into an intra-party movement like the Republicans have the Tea Party discontent (although the extremists within the Occupy movement need to leave the destruction and aggression alone).
And let’s not go into government spending...
No, I don’t fully trust government, but I trust the unforgiving market even less. Sometimes, government has to tinker with the market in order to ensure some stability. No, I don’t buy that nonsense that if you allow the market to “correct itself,” it will all balance out in the sweet By-And-By. We tried that once. And what did we get for our laissez faire mentality? The Great Depression.

Republicans:
What can I say about Republicans that I haven’t said before? Conspiracy theories among the extreme right of the party (e.g., Birthers, One-world governments, Trilateral Commissions? And I thought liberals were supposed to be the potheads…).
I like the idea of protecting the rights of gun owners, but just because we’ve elected a black president doesn’t necessitate a run on guns and ammunition. There has been no talk of curtailing gun ownership, despite the recent mass shootings so please stop with the hair trigger rhetoric, thinking, and actions you rabid gun owners!
On that note, conservative Republicans have far better mastered the art of political language, rhetoric, and propaganda with the skill of a Joseph Goebbels. Even every day people who identify with the political conservatism which Republicans are supposed to represent have adopted their politicians' penchant for selective memories, denial of facts, and favoring ideology over reality (the Democrats as a group look woefully inept by comparison when it comes to framing a coherent argument).
Trickle-down economics wasn’t very successful under the Reagan Administration, and just because it’s a new century doesn’t mean it will work any better…despite you’re dressing the notion up in the garb of “job creators.” With the very rare exception, there are no such thing as job creators; they are profit-creators who, if it were possible to create and turn a profit without incurring the labor costs in creating employment, they would in a heartbeat. The market is not sacrosanct. It is not above reproach or questioning. It is a man-made institution, subject to the same level of maintenance requirements as that of any man-made institution.
As an agnostic, I find the way Republicans have allowed Christian fundamentalists to co-op the Christian faith to be every bit as disturbing as the way Muslim fundamentalist (i.e. radical Muslims) have co-opted Islam. The Bible states, “Judge not least ye be judged.” The same hold true for those who would paint the religion of Islam (or any other religion) with a broad stroke; some of us are just as willing to do the same with your beliefs! Your perspectives and perception of the Christian interpretation of spirituality is just that…your perceptions. And no…not every political candidate for office is “told by God” to “run for the office of president" (get real…take your meds, and stifle the sanctimony while you're at it).

On a similar note, just because someone isn’t a conservative doesn’t automatically makes them a “liberal.” It’s one sociopolitical ideology among many. Conservatism didn’t come into being with the Big Bang. It’s not a flawless ideology, and following it’s beliefs to the letter will no more bring about a utopia than liberal Kumbaya-ism will. Stop with the dreaming and ideological delusion. Most of the current crop of Republicans have more of an allegiance to conservative ideology and the Republican Party than to reality. Sensible Republicans like the late Jack Kemp, Alan Keyes, and Colin Powell have no influence on this current brand.
Government spending…you want to stop it? Then let’s end pork barrel/pet project spending on both sides of the aisle. If local districts want another park or museum dedicated to lima beans, then let the locals fund it. If you’re going to talk about cutting spending…all spending must be on the chopping block. Also, every American must be willing to share sacrifice if the federal deficit is such an issue…that includes the 1-Percenters/”job creators.” Cutting taxes will not yield a balanced budget, nor has there ever been any proof that it will spur economic growth except under a particular series of conditions (that’s an unproven economic theory, much like that other theory conservatives can’t seem to swallow, that of evolution, which rank-and-file conservatives love to repeat without the benefit of research or context).
“Limited” government? You can’t claim to want “limited government” when it comes to matters of the market and/or economic equality, but then want to use the power of government to interfere with matters of social policy, such as gay marriage, abortion, and end-of-life determination. Either you’re for limited government or you’re not…otherwise, be as prepared to be labeled “hypocrite” as you are quick to label Democrats (for example, extremist Tea Party elements within the G.O.P. have called for privatizing entitlements, such as George Bush's 2005 proposal to tie Social Security to the stock market. Can you imagine how many people would have suffered if social security pensions were tied to, say the hot commodity of the market then, mortgage-backed securities? You say "You don't trust government?" Well, I don't trust the market!).
Climate change? If you are willing to believe in an all-seeing, all-knowing, invisible man hiding somewhere in the sky—without proof other than “faith”—then why is it hard to believe the science (which, by the way has been winning over skeptics) of man’s impact on the environment?
I could continue, but I will shorten my list of gripes with both parties due to fact that I know most of you will who are dedicated to these particular political parties will want to get started on you denials and finger-pointing towards the other camp.

The fact is that ideological views of these two parties have polarized our political system, almost beyond the prospect of repair. Government gridlock has paralyzed the legislation process. Many discontented individuals such as myself view both political parties as being, corrupt to their respective cores, and no longer capable of governing. The politicians of these entities have teamed up with corporations to place profit and the market above people and have decided that the richest 1% deserve tax breaks and preferential treatment while the rest of us pay the unbalanced tax burdens and are forced to live on less and less.
Some of us have had rich experiences in life, which have given us a unique insight and perspective on reality. because of that, some of use understand that ideology is often a smokescreen to clearer perceptions. That is why I write.

Now that that's been said, let’s not hear any more of this BS about how some of us cannot think beyond the spectrum...that's probably your hang-up!

Read More

The Problem With Capitalism...

A friend sent me the email below… And it made me think this:

The problem with capitalism is that the people who know how to make money, spend their time making money. The people who don’t know how to make money become politicians. Then they overspend taxes and the country ends up in debt.

Do you agree?

Something to think about...

Read More

Father Saves Young Girl...On Video

If you're one of those sorry individuals who watches the evening news and sits with anticipation of the next "perp-walk" spotlighting another one of those people, please make a note of Stephen St Bernard.
Bernard, a 52-year-old bus driver and father was walking home from work after finishing his shift when he heard a commotion from a nearby small crowd. Interested, he diverted from his path to investigate what was going on. Happening upon the scene, he saw a crowd of bystanders looking up and frozen into inaction at what they were watching.
What happened next should give even the most hardened skeptics of human behavior pause to re-think what "those people" are capable of.
Watch the video to see the events unfold.

Read More

The Politicization of Gender In America

I was recently motivated by a reader (thank you MLJ1219) to write about an issue that I have touched on on previous occasions, but have failed to articulate with any level of explicit understanding. It’s one of those issues which female readers of Beyond The Political Spectrum are not going to agree with me on, which is fine.
Recently, I posted a couple recent issues in the news—in addition to past postings—regarding the politicization of gender as a campaign issue, especially in this election year (Ex: "Contraception: It's Easier Than You Think," "Issues In The News (For Dummies!)," and "Contraception As A Political Issue...Does This Make Too Much Sense? (Part 2)").
In retrospect, I can see why some readers would have thought that I side with the Democrats on most women-related issues, seeing as how most of what said or indicated in previous posts seemed to reflect defending women’ rights on various issues.
However, a bit of clarification is in order. I feel compelled on this 40th anniversary of the Federal Title IX legislation to state that what I was attempting to showcase previously was the absurdity of gender-specific issues as campaign issues which at a time when jobs, the economy, and national security should take primary focus. I don’t defend issues such as abortion and contraception in and of themselves. What I object to is the politicization of gender as a campaign issue, which both parties—the Democrats in particular—are guilty of. To this point, conservatives—although in error to focus on individual decisions such as abortion as a practice (as well as other side issues) to be regulated by government—are right to criticize how Democrats are quick to pander to the emotionally volatile concerns of women among the voting electorate.
Take the recent debate surrounding the reauthorization of the 18-year-old anti-domestic violence law known as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Passed in 1994 the law, which among other things makes “crimes of violence motivated by the victim's gender" a federal civil rights violation, has been reauthorized on 2 previous occasions, with little fanfare. However, this year renewal of the bill faces opposition from conservative Republicans in the Senate due to added provisions which extended recognition, protections, and availability of resources (allocated in the initial bill) to cover Native Americans, lesbian, gay, and transgender Americans as well as illegal immigrants.
Democrats have smeared the Republicans’ opposition of the bill’s renewal to the “War on Women” they accuse the Republicans of engaging in as they erroneously focus on issues of reproduction and sexuality as campaign issues. They have, to some limited success, framed the Republicans’ effort to block passage of the reauthorization proposal as part of a greater conservative strategy against women, when it fact they are only opposed to the protections which women already benefit from extended to other groups, most of which are indeed questionable given their lack of legal total legal recognition.
Logic dictates that any federal law ostensibly created to protect women against domestic violence simply follow its inherent mandate. The addition of gay partners to this bill smacks of partisan one-upsmanship in using a female issue to gain political advantage, stretching the law’s initial credibility as a protection against, and recognition of male-on-female domestic violence. Furthermore, adding protections against battered female illegal immigrants is almost laughable; doing so validates the presence of illegal immigrants in a way which seems to focus on one particular crime—violence against female partners—while ignoring the larger issue of their illegal presence on American soil (yes, it’s acknowledged that previous versions the VAWA protected female immigrants from abusive spouses, but only insofar as pertains to their legal opportunity to obtain permanent immigration status based on the claim of abuse; it doesn’t impact the overall argument).
Additionally, there is more than enough law at the state and local levels which protect women against abusive partners. In fact, given the disproportionate way in which women are not only protected, but somewhat elevated in aspects of treatment in our contemporary culture, politicizing gender only further empowers women…at the expense of men. Take the issue of reproductive rights in America.
Despite the perception by many that there is an assault on women’s reproductive rights, women in a sense, have the overwhelming amount authority when it comes to deciding establishing the general rights and guidelines of parenthood (I can attest to this personally, see “Women Reproductive Rights...and Wrongs!”). Under the current socioeconomic and legal dynamic, women decide whether to become parents, not men. I know that presumes that men have no responsibility in the process, but strictly speaking, it is her body. A woman can opt to decide to have unprotected sex, knowing full well that under most normal circumstances, pregnancy can be the result. If the woman doesn’t want to actually have a baby, she has the right to invoke a type of mulligan...a do-over in the form of the right to either abort the baby, or to put it up for adoption (sorry to shatter the illusion, but despite laws on the record books that gives a biological father say-so in cases where a mother wants to put a baby up for adoption despite his objections, the level of stipulations and statutory requirements makes a father taking presumptive automatic custody renders this an unrealistic reality). In matter of abortion, the man has no input, and—for all intents and purposes—in matter of adoption he has very little.
On the other hand, the woman also chooses to whether or not to impose parenthood on a male, and has the ability to leverage the power of the state to compel him to financially contribute to a child’s upbringing in the form of pursing child support. If a man doesn’t want to be a father, it’s pretty much Tough ****. A man who doesn’t want to be a father is a “deadbeat dad” or “sperm donor,” and will be pursued with the conviction of hunting down Al Queda, while a woman who doesn’t want to be a mother has the benefit of the state protection of her rights. And of these men, more than a few of wouldn’t even have criminal records if not for an otherwise lackadaisical sense of priorities, while for mothers, only the most extreme cases of neglect would qualify as “criminal.”
And should I have to even mention how typically weighted proceedings, judgments, and (conditions of) “settlements” are in favor in women in family and divorce court? Toss in the subjective judgment by wife seeking divorce of “mental abuse” (or domestic abuse) and you get a system which makes the woman’s word in such legal proceedings beyond reproach (and no, I’m not speaking of actual cases of domestic violence where there is a tangible trail of evidence and history of such. I am speaking of the way in which many women allege such “abuse” when submitting a laundry list of accusations as reasons for a judge to rule against a man in impending divorce proceedings). The reason this happens is because in this particular arena of jurisprudence, “the standard of evidence (known as "preponderance of the evidence") is the lowest allowed by law,” and family court hearings are often heard by a panel of commissioners…and often “with no witnesses beyond the parties themselves” in order save time and lower strains on this area of the judicial system. (See: “Ripped Apart”).
To further emphasize this point of this judicial bias which is tilted in favor of women, consider the following:

Rhea Rolfe, an attorney who once taught a "women and the law" class at the University of Washington, recalls sitting with a male client in a commissioner's courtroom one day. There were maybe seven or eight cases heard. "She ruled against every single man," Rolfe recalls, "and two of them were unopposed."

In many cases, the accusation of abuse is the marital equivalent of a rape accusation without an actual rape having taken place…an occurrence which happens more than we’d like to think, thanks to (you guessed it) the socio-political power we give to a woman’s sexuality. The upshot is that considering how much our society—by way of our institutions, if not our thinking—have empowered women at the expense of men, politicizing gender-related issues is not only unnecessary, it’s another example of more than political pandering to particular demographics which politicians from the two main political party engage in…at the expense the general voting electorate. In the case of politicizing gender issues, it’s an obvious appeal by the Democrats to women…at the expense—in many respects—to men. Men have no reproductive rights, no male-issue-specific Washington lobby, and can be forced to pay child support—even in some cases where he is not the biological father. Women have far more advantages in seeking court-based redress in matter of marital discord, parenting rights, and general paternity. As one reader put it so well, “women have the upper hand. When men had the upper hand, it was called ‘oppression.’ Now that women have the upper hand, it’s called ‘equality.’”

Read More

Health Care Bill Upheld! (...or, "Please Mommy, Hold Me...I'm Scared!")

BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Law! (Notice This Scrolls To The Left)

Today while at work, I was listening to the radio, awaiting word of the Supreme Court’s impending shredding of President Obama’s signature legislation piece, The Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA). Like almost every other person anticipating the same outcome of the attempt to reform the drawbacks inherent in current health insurance regime, I was stunned—after having my expectations validated briefly by premature reporting of the act having been struck down—when the Court upheld the law by narrowest of margins. And after learning that the conservative Chief Justice John Roberts had cast the deciding vote, I walked off my job…since it was predicted by opponents that I would probably lose it anyway thanks to the bill’s inevitable “job killing” effect. I walked outside and looked up, expecting to see daylight sky replaced with an eerie out-of-place starscape where the sky once stood.
Starting to immediately regret that I had walked off my job, I looked around for the dark-suited, dark-shaded agents of the government that I was told would be coming to take away my freedoms…or at worst, take me away to the concentration camps for those of us who have understand The Truth. I got into my car and immediately drove home, being careful not to drive even a single mile-an-hour over the speed limit…lest I call the authorities down on me and push my luck at having escaped the government’s notice. When I got home, I immediately went to the place where I kept my guns; they were still there. No one had taken them! I then called my insurance company (knowing that they wouldn’t have received word of my having walked off my job) and checked on the status of my policy; nothing changed. I was still covered by the plan I had chosen months ago.
No, this scenario didn’t really happen. It was imagination. And so were the many other doomsday scenarios predicted by those opposed to revamping the current health care system. You and I are just as free today as we were the day before President Obama took the Oath of Office. The Supreme Court’s decision in upholding the majority of the president’s health care reform act was a surprising example of what can happen when policy makers can set aside their ideological leanings and make decisions that people can actually benefit from.
Is the ACA a perfect plan? Of course not. It’s not capitalism, but its hardly the example of “socialism” that critics purport it to be. Insurance companies can expect to increase the number of policies, and by extension, profits because of the portion of the bill which mandates purchasing of coverage.
Yes, there is a mandate attached, but government mandates are hardly new; we live with the consequences of them daily, and the sky has yet to fall down. During the 1790s, the Militia Act, pushed by George Washington and James Madison, required citizens to purchase muskets and other military supplies (and it doesn’t matter which hairsplitting distinction one attempts to make, it was a mandate proposed and supported by two of the Founding Fathers, case-closed). Paying taxes, the education of our children, purchasing automobile insurance, even serving on jury duty are all mandates that we live with.
Arguments against the ACA were and continue to be mostly anecdotal and/or ideological, not actual or tangible projections experts. Our society already spends enormous resources on medical care for the uninsured. The annual cost of unpaid care (mostly among the under- or uninsured) is estimated to be about $100 billion per year. This largely gets picked up by local governments or passed along to paying patients in the form of higher hospital bills, or the insured in the form of higher premiums. As it stands, many of us are already paying to those without coverage. As a matter of reality, we already have “rationed” health care in the form of the spreading cost of services; there are already “free riders.” And as for employers who will “not be able to pay” the additional (expected) costs of covering their employees, I have yet to see many credible projections indicating that American businesses will fold en masse as a result of the bill’s requirements.
The bottom line is that none the anticipated (and exaggerated) doom-n-gloom scenarios have occurred since the bill was upheld. You don’t have to take my word for it…go outside and look up at the…chances are its still there. Chances are, you aren’t in chains, and you’re not reading this from a concentration (or re-education) camp. Please get a grip on your paranoia! If many of you are so scared of your “evil government,” then I invite you to take a trip to countries without government, like Somalia and see how bad things can really get!

Read More

The National Debt...In Perspective!

National debt projection chart, courtesy of CBS News

As of March of this year, the National Debt officially increased more under the 3-plus years of the Obama Administration than it did during the 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.

According to federal budget records, the Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

Currently, the National Debt stands at some $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush's last day in office, coinciding with President Obama's first day.

The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.

President Obama and his supporters often blame his predecessor for the soaring Debt, saying Mr. Bush paid for two wars and a Medicare prescription drug program with borrowed funds.

The federal budget sent to Congress last month by the president projects the National Debt will continue to rise at a propitious rate. The budget shows the Debt hitting $16.3 trillion in 2012, $17.5 trillion in 2013 and $25.9 trillion in 2022.

However, between the Obama and Bush II administrations, I thought it would be nice to put the National Debt--and the various legislative proposals to remedy it--in a unique perspective. Or rather, allow Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders' statement on the budget to draw the unique perspective on the National Deficit...as it relates to the Debt.

Read More