Some seem confused about what the Occupy Wall Street protests are about, protesters have been called un-American, free-loaders, uninformed, and worse. Many in politics and the media claim that they don't know what the protesters even want and question whether the protesters even know what they're protesting about.
The point of the protest is fairly simple and I assumed readily apparent and I think it's best illustrated by a failed Senate resolution that was highlighted on MSNBC's "The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell" tonight. While Mr. O'Donnell didn't make a correlation between the failed resolution and the protest I feel that it demonstrates what folks are upset about.
Senate Resolution 1323 is a simple one-page document that highlights a few facts and makes a statement about fairness. The resolution notes who has been winning over the past few decades and who has been losing over those same decades. All the resolution asks is that those who have been winning for so long contribute some to our debt reduction effort, it doesn't even go so far as to give an amount, all it does is say that it would be fair that those who have not been asked to contribute anything to our debt contribute something. Unfortunately this resolution failed and did not garner a single Republican vote.
Those who made up the top 1% of income earners in this country prior to the recession have been doing even better over the past couple of years than they were prior to the recession. Most in the top 1% pay a lower tax rate than the average American in the form of capital gains. And some of those in the top 1% were the very ones who caused our current financial predicament, and they still have their jobs and they haven't been asked to contribute anything to our recovery.
Those participating in Occupy Wall Street are representing the other 99% of the Americans, many of them prior to the recession had good paying jobs, paid their bills, and weren't drowning in their mortgage. They were doing exactly what was expected of them and were model citizens. Then suddenly in 2008 or 2009 they found themselves jobless due to the greed and illegal dealings of others and even though many of those business have since recovered they've now found they can make more money with less and are not hiring all of those jobs back. All debt reduction plans that have passed and those that actually have a chance of passing Congress only ask that those from the 99% who have already been wronged and are already struggling be the ones to give up more in the name of debt reduction. All the protesters want is for the top 1% to have to contribute just a little bit to our recovery (as do many of the 1%) and that maybe, just maybe, those who broke laws and caused our current economic situation actually face justice for their actions instead of collecting their record bonuses.
Is that really so hard to understand? I encourage you to read the Senate resolution, it's only one page and the statistics given couldn't be clearer. You can read it here.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Saturday, August 13, 2011
The Petition
If you have any millionaire or billionaire friends you can have them sign the petition I've started for my plan via the petition tool on the left-hand side of this page or at the following link:
http://www.change.org/petitions/us-house-of-representatives-us-senate-2-tax-increase-on-income-of-1-million-and-above-for-10-years
Thanks for reading!
http://www.change.org/petitions/us-house-of-representatives-us-senate-2-tax-increase-on-income-of-1-million-and-above-for-10-years
Thanks for reading!
The Plan
Okay so it's 2:00am as I'm writing this and for some reason I can't sleep, but as I was laying in bed an idea hit me so bear with me as I'm going to try an articulate this idea and put it in writing before I fall asleep and forget it. It's going to sound a little crazy but I think it's just crazy enough to work and will solve or at least improve our current economic outlook, and it will garner bipartisan support even from those who have pledged to never raise taxes.
Allow me to preface my idea with a little background information. We never paid for the Bush tax cuts, for some reason we decided to lower everyone's taxes and not actually pay for them and never thought to roll them back even though we were involved in two wars. As far as I'm aware we've never lowered taxes during war in our nation's history, nor waged a war without paying for it. It was fiscally irresponsible for us to have lowered taxes when we did and nobody who voted for them can claim to be a "fiscal conservative." We've chosen to extend these tax cuts and still not provide a way to pay for them. Obviously we can't just roll back the tax cuts on everybody, rolling back cuts on the middle-class or "spending-class" would be disastrous and shrink our already slow-growing economy and increase unemployment. The only segment of our population that is doing well at this point are our wealthiest Americans and they are statistically doing better than before the recession, they are currently not sacrificing in this economy as the other 99% of us are and as we are being asked to further sacrifice through spending cuts. Nor have we been asked to sacrifice as a citizenry during these wars as we have in wars past. I cannot imagine what those who lived through WWII endured when everything was being rationed, how disappointed they must be in us today. Only 1% of our citizens are actually enlisted in military service, an all-volunteer force we can certainly be proud of. But what did the other 99% of the population contribute to the war effort? Obviously parents, spouses, and others sacrificed hours of worry as loved ones served overseas and many families paid the ultimate sacrifice when their heroes made the return trip in flag-draped caskets. But what was asked of us as a nation really? We got tax cuts and didn't have to ration a single thing.
It's now time for our nation to ask those who are doing well to sacrifice for the betterment of their country and their fellow Americans, and it's time for them to answer that call and that brings me to my plan.
The Policy Proposal
My proposal is to raise the tax rate on individuals making $1 million per year in income by 2% for a period of 10 years. The additional revenue generated from this tax increase must be used directly for investments that will lead to job creation and economic growth.
My intention is not to demonize millionaires or billionaires, there is certainly nothing wrong with making $1 million a year or more and the tax increase is not a form of "punishment." But our economy is in need of a boost, economists of all political stripes agree that we need to increase revenues even former Reagan and Bush advisers and as I mentioned earlier the wealthiest of Americans are the only group that can absorb a tax increase at the moment. I don't think of this as a punishment for being rich but as a request for them to serve their country in a time of need. For some this may be the first time they have been asked to serve and others may have already served on the battlefield or at home, but if our men and women in uniform can deploy 6 or 8 times to a war zone some of those who have served before can serve again for us financially.
The current top tax rate is 35%, let's say for argument's sake that somebody making $1 million dollars actually pays the full rate (nobody pays a the full tax rate and any income level) that leaves them with $650,000. Divide that over 12 months and that's a monthly after-tax income of $54,167. Someone at this income level is probably not living paycheck to paycheck and could easily absorb an additional 2% in taxes, under the temporary 10 year increase I'm proposing that changes our figures to $630,000 annually at $52,500 per month.
Now let's use some real numbers because as I stated before nobody pays the full tax rate. According to Tax.com in 2007 the average effective tax rate for somebody making $1 million was 22.1% (and that figure has been trending down over time). If we raise their tax rate from 35% to 37% as I propose they'll probably only have an effective tax increase of less than 1%, but for easy math let's say they get an effective increase of 1%. In more realistic numbers they will take home $769,000 annually which is $64,083 per month. One would think that this wouldn't be much of a burden.
Winning Bipartisan Support
Now you may be saying to yourself, "Chris you're delusional you'll never get the GOP to go for a tax increase." If you watched the GOP presidential debate Thursday night you'd be right in thinking that, even with a deal of 10:1 spending cuts to revenue increases none of the candidates would sign that deal. As we saw in the debt ceiling debate tax increases, or even eliminating some egregious tax loopholes, was a non-starter for conservatives. But I'm putting my faith into those whose taxes will be increased.
The next part of my plan is to start a petition that will be signed by millionaires and billionaires urging congress to pass a 2% tax increase on them in which the new revenues will be invested in jobs and economic growth. I don't feel that this will be a tough sell on those who will have their taxes increased, many prominent millionaires and billionaires have asked to have their taxes increased and have stated that they didn't ask for the Bush tax cuts in the first place. There's even a group called "Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Responsibility" who had petitioned the President in 2010 to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for households making over $250,000 annually. But we don't need to convince President Obama, he's already on board with raising revenue, we have to target our petition at Congress.
Once we have gathered a few million signatures from our millionaires and billionaires we can send them to the desk of any member of Congress who has vowed to not raise taxes along with a copy of the proposed legislation. Once they know that those who the tax increase is aimed at see it as their patriotic duty to have their taxes temporarily raised and add in that any spending stemming from these tax revenues won't be "increased spending" as these revenues didn't previously exist I think they will have no argument against passing this temporary tax increase.
The First Step
So there's the plan, I think this is something that reasonable people can agree on moving forward with and voting for. Now is the time to take action, I will spend the next few weeks petitioning the White House and members of Congress to bring this proposal forward and start crunching the numbers. I will explore the process of getting a petition started and send it to every activist group and news outlet in every corner of the country and hope it catches on like wildfire. I don't know how something becomes "viral" but everyone whose ever had anything go viral says they never expected it to, I hope this is something we can get done so we can begin to tackle our unemployment crisis and get Americans who are struggling back on their feet again.
It's now 3:00am, I think I caught all my typos but if not it's early so give me a beak! That's my excuse anyway.
Allow me to preface my idea with a little background information. We never paid for the Bush tax cuts, for some reason we decided to lower everyone's taxes and not actually pay for them and never thought to roll them back even though we were involved in two wars. As far as I'm aware we've never lowered taxes during war in our nation's history, nor waged a war without paying for it. It was fiscally irresponsible for us to have lowered taxes when we did and nobody who voted for them can claim to be a "fiscal conservative." We've chosen to extend these tax cuts and still not provide a way to pay for them. Obviously we can't just roll back the tax cuts on everybody, rolling back cuts on the middle-class or "spending-class" would be disastrous and shrink our already slow-growing economy and increase unemployment. The only segment of our population that is doing well at this point are our wealthiest Americans and they are statistically doing better than before the recession, they are currently not sacrificing in this economy as the other 99% of us are and as we are being asked to further sacrifice through spending cuts. Nor have we been asked to sacrifice as a citizenry during these wars as we have in wars past. I cannot imagine what those who lived through WWII endured when everything was being rationed, how disappointed they must be in us today. Only 1% of our citizens are actually enlisted in military service, an all-volunteer force we can certainly be proud of. But what did the other 99% of the population contribute to the war effort? Obviously parents, spouses, and others sacrificed hours of worry as loved ones served overseas and many families paid the ultimate sacrifice when their heroes made the return trip in flag-draped caskets. But what was asked of us as a nation really? We got tax cuts and didn't have to ration a single thing.
It's now time for our nation to ask those who are doing well to sacrifice for the betterment of their country and their fellow Americans, and it's time for them to answer that call and that brings me to my plan.
The Policy Proposal
My proposal is to raise the tax rate on individuals making $1 million per year in income by 2% for a period of 10 years. The additional revenue generated from this tax increase must be used directly for investments that will lead to job creation and economic growth.
My intention is not to demonize millionaires or billionaires, there is certainly nothing wrong with making $1 million a year or more and the tax increase is not a form of "punishment." But our economy is in need of a boost, economists of all political stripes agree that we need to increase revenues even former Reagan and Bush advisers and as I mentioned earlier the wealthiest of Americans are the only group that can absorb a tax increase at the moment. I don't think of this as a punishment for being rich but as a request for them to serve their country in a time of need. For some this may be the first time they have been asked to serve and others may have already served on the battlefield or at home, but if our men and women in uniform can deploy 6 or 8 times to a war zone some of those who have served before can serve again for us financially.
The current top tax rate is 35%, let's say for argument's sake that somebody making $1 million dollars actually pays the full rate (nobody pays a the full tax rate and any income level) that leaves them with $650,000. Divide that over 12 months and that's a monthly after-tax income of $54,167. Someone at this income level is probably not living paycheck to paycheck and could easily absorb an additional 2% in taxes, under the temporary 10 year increase I'm proposing that changes our figures to $630,000 annually at $52,500 per month.
Now let's use some real numbers because as I stated before nobody pays the full tax rate. According to Tax.com in 2007 the average effective tax rate for somebody making $1 million was 22.1% (and that figure has been trending down over time). If we raise their tax rate from 35% to 37% as I propose they'll probably only have an effective tax increase of less than 1%, but for easy math let's say they get an effective increase of 1%. In more realistic numbers they will take home $769,000 annually which is $64,083 per month. One would think that this wouldn't be much of a burden.
Winning Bipartisan Support
Now you may be saying to yourself, "Chris you're delusional you'll never get the GOP to go for a tax increase." If you watched the GOP presidential debate Thursday night you'd be right in thinking that, even with a deal of 10:1 spending cuts to revenue increases none of the candidates would sign that deal. As we saw in the debt ceiling debate tax increases, or even eliminating some egregious tax loopholes, was a non-starter for conservatives. But I'm putting my faith into those whose taxes will be increased.
The next part of my plan is to start a petition that will be signed by millionaires and billionaires urging congress to pass a 2% tax increase on them in which the new revenues will be invested in jobs and economic growth. I don't feel that this will be a tough sell on those who will have their taxes increased, many prominent millionaires and billionaires have asked to have their taxes increased and have stated that they didn't ask for the Bush tax cuts in the first place. There's even a group called "Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Responsibility" who had petitioned the President in 2010 to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for households making over $250,000 annually. But we don't need to convince President Obama, he's already on board with raising revenue, we have to target our petition at Congress.
Once we have gathered a few million signatures from our millionaires and billionaires we can send them to the desk of any member of Congress who has vowed to not raise taxes along with a copy of the proposed legislation. Once they know that those who the tax increase is aimed at see it as their patriotic duty to have their taxes temporarily raised and add in that any spending stemming from these tax revenues won't be "increased spending" as these revenues didn't previously exist I think they will have no argument against passing this temporary tax increase.
The First Step
So there's the plan, I think this is something that reasonable people can agree on moving forward with and voting for. Now is the time to take action, I will spend the next few weeks petitioning the White House and members of Congress to bring this proposal forward and start crunching the numbers. I will explore the process of getting a petition started and send it to every activist group and news outlet in every corner of the country and hope it catches on like wildfire. I don't know how something becomes "viral" but everyone whose ever had anything go viral says they never expected it to, I hope this is something we can get done so we can begin to tackle our unemployment crisis and get Americans who are struggling back on their feet again.
It's now 3:00am, I think I caught all my typos but if not it's early so give me a beak! That's my excuse anyway.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
We Need A Stimulus: Follow-Up
I have been inspired to provide a quick follow-up to yesterday's blog entry We Need A Stimulus. One of the stories on tonight's episode of MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show was the hypocrisy of those in the GOP who decry government spending to spur job growth. More specifically she went after Republicans that publicly rail against the stimulus while privately requesting stimulus funds from the Obama administration and admitting that requested funds will create jobs. Rachel provided a link to a previous episode that covered this topic along with other articles that point out this hypocrisy citing specific examples.
The first link is from an article I read this morning written by Sam Stein for the Huffington post. Anybody whose heard of GOP Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann probably know that she's very open in her disdain for government and government spending. Anti-government spending is one of the major pillars of her campaign but Mr. Stein did a little research and found several letters she had written in 2009 requesting government stimulus funds for her district and in those letters she lists how many jobs those stimulus funds will create:
The first link is from an article I read this morning written by Sam Stein for the Huffington post. Anybody whose heard of GOP Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann probably know that she's very open in her disdain for government and government spending. Anti-government spending is one of the major pillars of her campaign but Mr. Stein did a little research and found several letters she had written in 2009 requesting government stimulus funds for her district and in those letters she lists how many jobs those stimulus funds will create:
Another article that was not available on her website was written by Steve Benen of Washington Monthly who was a guest on tonight's show. He has a proposal for the President and one I think could be a very effective stimulus:
You can read his full article here:"Here's the pitch: have the White House take the several hundred letters GOP lawmakers have sent to the executive branch since 2009, asking for public investments, and let President Obama announce he'll gladly fund all of the Repulicans' requests that have not yet been filled."
The next article is by Lee Fang of Think Progress illustrating how 110 GOP lawmakers who voted against the stimulus tout its success and ask for more funds for their districts:
And the final link is to a video segment from a previous The Rachel Maddow Show episode that listed lawmakers who voted against the stimulus but praised stimulus programs and asked for more funds (I'm not sure of the original air date):
As I eluded to yesterday, targeted government spending to programs that create jobs and grow the economy has always been a bipartisan issue. Presidents from both parties have enacted these types of stimulus measures. The same bipartisan support holds true today, the difference is that some GOP politicians vote against the stimulus and pretend not to support it directly but then take photo-ops once the money creates jobs in their districts and secretly write letters requesting more. It's time for these legislators to come out of the stimulus closet and openly propose a job-creating stimulus. We need to create jobs now.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
We Need A Stimulus
Okay so its been a little over a month since I've posted anything, chalk it up to a busy work schedule combined with some writer's block. The only thing that seems worth writing about politically recently has been revolving around the debt ceiling and the economy and I've been pretty bored (although still aggravated) with that topic. As you know Congress has recently passed a debt reduction package that only contains spending cuts, to the chagrin of liberals, and in turn raises the debt ceiling, to the disfavor of the Tea Party. Standard & Poor's downgraded the creditworthiness of the United States for the first time in American history on Friday from AAA to AA+. The downgrade was strictly political pointing out that some in Congress were ready and willing to take the US to the brink of default and that Republicans were unwilling to increase revenues even if that meant only cutting tax loopholes while not raising tax rates (not sure why they waited until after the deal was done to downgrade). Republicans in Congress and those seeking the GOP nomination for a run at the White House have ignored that little factoid while placing all of the blame on the President. Although S&P is correct in their statements about our current political turmoil they were wrong for downgrading our creditworthiness as there is no current risk of us not honoring our debts. In fact investors flocked to US Treasury notes on Monday, ignoring S&P's downgrade and proving that the US is the safest investment in the world, all while the Dow plunged 634 points in response to investor's concerns that the economy is not growing as fast as needed. Washington has spent the past few months focusing on the wrong problems, deficit and our long-term debt, and what they should be focusing on is economic growth and investors agree which is why the Dow had fallen by 15% over the past two weeks. What we need now is a stimulus.
Moving in the Wrong Direction; a Brief History Lesson
We're making the same mistakes some previous administrations had made during times of recession and depression which lengthened the time that many had to endure economic suffering. I'm reminded of the often misquoted and misattributed statement of George Santayana who said "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." While there has been an influx of freshmen members of congress who claim to know more of American history than the average American they clearly did not study the economics of recession. After the stock market crash of 1929 that led to the Great Depression President Herbert Hoover chose to focus on balancing the budget (having already created deficits in part by reducing the top tax rate from 73% to 24% prior to the crash), rejecting the idea of federal relief payments to individuals, and passing legislation to expel immigrants from Mexico back to their home country. These are many of the same ideas being proposed today; lower taxes on the wealthiest and corporations, reduce unemployment insurance benefits, entitlements, and other government assistance programs, and increase the deportation of illegal immigrants with tougher anti-immigration measures. As we now know none of Hoover's initiatives led to economic recovery and only worsened a bad situation.
When Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in 1933 he immediately went to work on initiatives to grow the economy. The creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps allowed the government to directly hire 250,000 men to work on rural projects, he implemented mortgage relief to stop many foreclosures and keep people in their homes (although President Hoover also enacted a mortgage relief policy it was too little and too late into his presidency to make any significant impact). FDR enacted tougher regulations on business while also encouraging unions and creation of the Securities Exchange Commission, the Tennessee Valley Authority (infrastructure projects), and Social Security. He injected billions of dollars into the economy as stimulus and while Hoover grew the debt from 16% of the gross national product (GNP) to 40% the debt held steady under FDR until the start of WWII, but he still was blamed for the height debt by conservative opponents (sound familiar?). Unemployment fell at a steady rate during this period and the economy grew rapidly until 1937.
Enter 1937, company profits were at the levels they were in 1929 and unemployment, while high, was declining (remember company profits now are better than they were in 2008 and unemployment is slowly declining) and the FDR administration felt pressured into addressing the debt and deficit. In response government spending was reduced and the economy dipped into a 13 month recession with unemployment rising by over 4% and manufacturing output declined by 37%
There should be a lesson to be learned from this, worrying about debt and deficits during a recession and responding by tightening the government's belt leads to an extended recession or a decline back into a recession during a recovery. What grew the economy during the 1930's and other times in our history was economic stimulus and investments in pro-growth agendas. President Bush lowered taxes on the wealthiest of Americans prior to our recession that started in 2008 (just like Hoover did before the depression) and President Obama has chosen to listen to conservatives and extend these tax cuts, keeping money from the government that could be used to stimulate our economy and address our deficits. And now the President has agreed to reign in government spending by reducing proposed spending in the FY 2011 budget and a cuts-only agreement to address our nation's debt during a time of slow economic recovery. I don't feel that enacting the same policies that led to recessions in the past will somehow not have the same results now.
A Road to Recovery
The first item on the agenda is to extend unemployment benefits, current policies that extend federal unemployment benefits are set to expire at the end of 2011, we can't let these expire. Unfortunately there are some that demonize the unemployed, many of those who are currently collecting unemployment insurance are only unemployed as a result of the recession. Prior to our current economic situation many of these individuals held stable, well-paying jobs, and have been actively seeking employment. Companies like McDonald's aren't going to take a chance on an unemployed high-level corporate manager who used to make six figures knowing that they will take a better job in their previous field as soon as one becomes available. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation not extending unemployment benefits would cost 528,000 jobs and shrink the GDP by 0.4% in 2012 (see Table 1). Unemployment provides a safety net for families so that they can continue to buy food, pay their bills, and stay in their home while the wage earner(s) are looking for employment.
Next we need to extend the payroll tax holiday that is also set to expire at the end of this year. I was initially against the payroll tax holiday, and still am, as I feel it was a ploy to underfund Social Security which currently does not contribute to our debt and felt that it was a slippery slope. Once payroll taxes were lowered what politician in their right mind would ever raise them back to their normal rates? But now that payroll taxes have been lowered allowing the holiday to expire would essentially raise taxes on the middle class who are already suffering, prompting them to spend less and we just cant afford to take dollars out of the economy right now. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation not extending the payroll tax holiday would cost 972,000 jobs and shrink the GDP by 0.8% in 2012 (see Table 1).
If you combine not extending unemployment and the payroll tax holiday with the jobs that will be lost due to spending cuts proposed by the debt reduction deal the economy will lose over 1.8 million jobs in 2012 along with shrinking the GDP by 1.5% (see Table 1). This is not a formula for recovery.
Table 1.
We also must invest in education, the current trend among states and the federal government has been to slash funding for education. I'm speaking of both primary and secondary education. We must invest in our children to ensure that we remain competitive on the world stage and to have a workforce who posses the skills needed for the 21st century and beyond. There are a lot of those unemployed I mentioned earlier whose jobs will never return, either their employer learned to do more with less or their job was shipped overseas with wages so low the United States cannot compete. We must invest in education for the unemployed as well to provide them with the tools needed to transition to a new career. Eric Spiegel, CEO for Siemens in the US has expressed that they have jobs that need to be filled but the pool of unemployed lack the skills necessary for those job openings (read the CNBC story here).
And finally we need to invest in job-creation projects and I feel the most effective way the government can directly create jobs is through infrastructure projects. In 2009 the American Society of Civil Engineers released their Report Card for American Infrastructure giving the US an overall rating of "D" and estimating it would cost $2.2 trillion over 5 years to fix our deficiencies. We know we have to fix our infrastructure, not doing so is just delaying the inevitable. The government will have to spend money at some point to fix our infrastructure and there's no better time than now. It's the perfect storm, you have an unemployment rate of 9.1%, construction companies, manufactures, and contractors are desperate for work. The US government will not be able to get work contracts any cheaper than they can right now, if we wait until the economy is stronger to invest in infrastructure the price will just go up, labor, materials, and overhead will all cost more in a stronger economy. Not only will the government get cheaper contracts now rather than later it will create direct jobs for those who will be working on these projects, these construction and manufacturing jobs will in turn create retail and service jobs, adding more taxpayers to the pool which in turn could be used to address our debt once the economy recovers. It's a win-win.
We can roll all of these initiatives into a stimulus package that will guarantee economic growth at a much faster pace than we are experiencing now. I know that "stimulus" has become a bad word in our lexicon and many have said that the stimulus "failed" and didn't save or create any jobs. This is just not true, if anything the stimulus wasn't big enough and was more of a band-aid approach. The stimulus provided money to states who were out of money to prevent massive layoffs in the public sector, had the stimulus not been passed millions of teachers, firefighters, police officers, and other public sector workers would have been out of work which would have increased unemployment to even higher rates than we are currently experiencing and would have led to more job losses in the private sector as spending would have decreased. Had more money been allotted for the stimulus not only could it have saved the jobs it did there would have been more money available to invest in projects that would have created new jobs (some states were able to invest in infrastructure projects that did lead to job creation). According to FactCheck.org (using numbers from the Congressional Budget Office) the stimulus created and saved between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs and reduced unemployment between 0.7 and 1.8 percentage points. The band-aid stimulus has since expired, now it's time to enact the pro-growth stimulus including items listed above.
A Choice
Some claim that just reducing taxes on corporations and the wealthy along with spending cuts will spur job growth, it doesn't. We've tried supply-side economics in the past and it doesn't lead to job creation. The Bush tax cuts were in place for 10 years without any significant job growth, we have since extended the cuts and have not seen a sudden jump in job growth that currently isn't keeping pace with population growth. Companies can't hire more employees if they can't sell any more of their services or products, the economy now needs demand to create growth, the supply-side math just doesn't add up.
Others claim that getting our fiscal house in order should be our primary objective and somehow (it hasn't been explained how as far as I'm aware) this will spur hiring and economic growth. As we've learned from the lessons of Hoover and FDR cutting spending during a recession/recovery actually shrinks the economy and causes unemployment to rise.
Economic recovery is going to cost money, Presidents from both parties have invested dollars in infrastructure and other programs during recessions and we know it creates jobs and spurs economic growth. Now that doesn't mean that we can haphazardly spend, we have to target stimulus injections towards programs we know promotes growth such as those I've already listed. Anytime I bring this topic up I'm chided by my conservative friends about out-of-control spending, I don't know of a single liberal out there who thinks we should spend beyond our means for extended periods of time or during a strong economic climate. But in desperate times you sometimes have to overextend your finances to keep a bad situation from getting worse. I cannot understand in a world where it is expected that businesses and individuals will carry debt (most folks don't pay cash for their home) that somehow the government can't. Every major country in the world has debt, why would the United States by any different? Everyone agrees that we cannot sustain our current spending levels, yes even liberals, but it all comes down to priorities. Do you focus on debt now while the economy and country are hurting or do you invest in growth now and then focus on spending once the economy recovers?
In which order do you think we should address the following?
__ Getting the unemployed back to work
__ Paying down our debt
I like to think of it in terms of a household, if you're out of work do you focus on paying off your credit cards or focus on getting a new job even if it means spending money on a new suit and a resume? I think the choice is obvious, somehow Washington does not.
Moving in the Wrong Direction; a Brief History Lesson
We're making the same mistakes some previous administrations had made during times of recession and depression which lengthened the time that many had to endure economic suffering. I'm reminded of the often misquoted and misattributed statement of George Santayana who said "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." While there has been an influx of freshmen members of congress who claim to know more of American history than the average American they clearly did not study the economics of recession. After the stock market crash of 1929 that led to the Great Depression President Herbert Hoover chose to focus on balancing the budget (having already created deficits in part by reducing the top tax rate from 73% to 24% prior to the crash), rejecting the idea of federal relief payments to individuals, and passing legislation to expel immigrants from Mexico back to their home country. These are many of the same ideas being proposed today; lower taxes on the wealthiest and corporations, reduce unemployment insurance benefits, entitlements, and other government assistance programs, and increase the deportation of illegal immigrants with tougher anti-immigration measures. As we now know none of Hoover's initiatives led to economic recovery and only worsened a bad situation.
When Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in 1933 he immediately went to work on initiatives to grow the economy. The creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps allowed the government to directly hire 250,000 men to work on rural projects, he implemented mortgage relief to stop many foreclosures and keep people in their homes (although President Hoover also enacted a mortgage relief policy it was too little and too late into his presidency to make any significant impact). FDR enacted tougher regulations on business while also encouraging unions and creation of the Securities Exchange Commission, the Tennessee Valley Authority (infrastructure projects), and Social Security. He injected billions of dollars into the economy as stimulus and while Hoover grew the debt from 16% of the gross national product (GNP) to 40% the debt held steady under FDR until the start of WWII, but he still was blamed for the height debt by conservative opponents (sound familiar?). Unemployment fell at a steady rate during this period and the economy grew rapidly until 1937.
Enter 1937, company profits were at the levels they were in 1929 and unemployment, while high, was declining (remember company profits now are better than they were in 2008 and unemployment is slowly declining) and the FDR administration felt pressured into addressing the debt and deficit. In response government spending was reduced and the economy dipped into a 13 month recession with unemployment rising by over 4% and manufacturing output declined by 37%
There should be a lesson to be learned from this, worrying about debt and deficits during a recession and responding by tightening the government's belt leads to an extended recession or a decline back into a recession during a recovery. What grew the economy during the 1930's and other times in our history was economic stimulus and investments in pro-growth agendas. President Bush lowered taxes on the wealthiest of Americans prior to our recession that started in 2008 (just like Hoover did before the depression) and President Obama has chosen to listen to conservatives and extend these tax cuts, keeping money from the government that could be used to stimulate our economy and address our deficits. And now the President has agreed to reign in government spending by reducing proposed spending in the FY 2011 budget and a cuts-only agreement to address our nation's debt during a time of slow economic recovery. I don't feel that enacting the same policies that led to recessions in the past will somehow not have the same results now.
A Road to Recovery
The first item on the agenda is to extend unemployment benefits, current policies that extend federal unemployment benefits are set to expire at the end of 2011, we can't let these expire. Unfortunately there are some that demonize the unemployed, many of those who are currently collecting unemployment insurance are only unemployed as a result of the recession. Prior to our current economic situation many of these individuals held stable, well-paying jobs, and have been actively seeking employment. Companies like McDonald's aren't going to take a chance on an unemployed high-level corporate manager who used to make six figures knowing that they will take a better job in their previous field as soon as one becomes available. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation not extending unemployment benefits would cost 528,000 jobs and shrink the GDP by 0.4% in 2012 (see Table 1). Unemployment provides a safety net for families so that they can continue to buy food, pay their bills, and stay in their home while the wage earner(s) are looking for employment.
Next we need to extend the payroll tax holiday that is also set to expire at the end of this year. I was initially against the payroll tax holiday, and still am, as I feel it was a ploy to underfund Social Security which currently does not contribute to our debt and felt that it was a slippery slope. Once payroll taxes were lowered what politician in their right mind would ever raise them back to their normal rates? But now that payroll taxes have been lowered allowing the holiday to expire would essentially raise taxes on the middle class who are already suffering, prompting them to spend less and we just cant afford to take dollars out of the economy right now. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation not extending the payroll tax holiday would cost 972,000 jobs and shrink the GDP by 0.8% in 2012 (see Table 1).
If you combine not extending unemployment and the payroll tax holiday with the jobs that will be lost due to spending cuts proposed by the debt reduction deal the economy will lose over 1.8 million jobs in 2012 along with shrinking the GDP by 1.5% (see Table 1). This is not a formula for recovery.
We also must invest in education, the current trend among states and the federal government has been to slash funding for education. I'm speaking of both primary and secondary education. We must invest in our children to ensure that we remain competitive on the world stage and to have a workforce who posses the skills needed for the 21st century and beyond. There are a lot of those unemployed I mentioned earlier whose jobs will never return, either their employer learned to do more with less or their job was shipped overseas with wages so low the United States cannot compete. We must invest in education for the unemployed as well to provide them with the tools needed to transition to a new career. Eric Spiegel, CEO for Siemens in the US has expressed that they have jobs that need to be filled but the pool of unemployed lack the skills necessary for those job openings (read the CNBC story here).
And finally we need to invest in job-creation projects and I feel the most effective way the government can directly create jobs is through infrastructure projects. In 2009 the American Society of Civil Engineers released their Report Card for American Infrastructure giving the US an overall rating of "D" and estimating it would cost $2.2 trillion over 5 years to fix our deficiencies. We know we have to fix our infrastructure, not doing so is just delaying the inevitable. The government will have to spend money at some point to fix our infrastructure and there's no better time than now. It's the perfect storm, you have an unemployment rate of 9.1%, construction companies, manufactures, and contractors are desperate for work. The US government will not be able to get work contracts any cheaper than they can right now, if we wait until the economy is stronger to invest in infrastructure the price will just go up, labor, materials, and overhead will all cost more in a stronger economy. Not only will the government get cheaper contracts now rather than later it will create direct jobs for those who will be working on these projects, these construction and manufacturing jobs will in turn create retail and service jobs, adding more taxpayers to the pool which in turn could be used to address our debt once the economy recovers. It's a win-win.
We can roll all of these initiatives into a stimulus package that will guarantee economic growth at a much faster pace than we are experiencing now. I know that "stimulus" has become a bad word in our lexicon and many have said that the stimulus "failed" and didn't save or create any jobs. This is just not true, if anything the stimulus wasn't big enough and was more of a band-aid approach. The stimulus provided money to states who were out of money to prevent massive layoffs in the public sector, had the stimulus not been passed millions of teachers, firefighters, police officers, and other public sector workers would have been out of work which would have increased unemployment to even higher rates than we are currently experiencing and would have led to more job losses in the private sector as spending would have decreased. Had more money been allotted for the stimulus not only could it have saved the jobs it did there would have been more money available to invest in projects that would have created new jobs (some states were able to invest in infrastructure projects that did lead to job creation). According to FactCheck.org (using numbers from the Congressional Budget Office) the stimulus created and saved between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs and reduced unemployment between 0.7 and 1.8 percentage points. The band-aid stimulus has since expired, now it's time to enact the pro-growth stimulus including items listed above.
A Choice
Some claim that just reducing taxes on corporations and the wealthy along with spending cuts will spur job growth, it doesn't. We've tried supply-side economics in the past and it doesn't lead to job creation. The Bush tax cuts were in place for 10 years without any significant job growth, we have since extended the cuts and have not seen a sudden jump in job growth that currently isn't keeping pace with population growth. Companies can't hire more employees if they can't sell any more of their services or products, the economy now needs demand to create growth, the supply-side math just doesn't add up.
Others claim that getting our fiscal house in order should be our primary objective and somehow (it hasn't been explained how as far as I'm aware) this will spur hiring and economic growth. As we've learned from the lessons of Hoover and FDR cutting spending during a recession/recovery actually shrinks the economy and causes unemployment to rise.
Economic recovery is going to cost money, Presidents from both parties have invested dollars in infrastructure and other programs during recessions and we know it creates jobs and spurs economic growth. Now that doesn't mean that we can haphazardly spend, we have to target stimulus injections towards programs we know promotes growth such as those I've already listed. Anytime I bring this topic up I'm chided by my conservative friends about out-of-control spending, I don't know of a single liberal out there who thinks we should spend beyond our means for extended periods of time or during a strong economic climate. But in desperate times you sometimes have to overextend your finances to keep a bad situation from getting worse. I cannot understand in a world where it is expected that businesses and individuals will carry debt (most folks don't pay cash for their home) that somehow the government can't. Every major country in the world has debt, why would the United States by any different? Everyone agrees that we cannot sustain our current spending levels, yes even liberals, but it all comes down to priorities. Do you focus on debt now while the economy and country are hurting or do you invest in growth now and then focus on spending once the economy recovers?
In which order do you think we should address the following?
__ Getting the unemployed back to work
__ Paying down our debt
I like to think of it in terms of a household, if you're out of work do you focus on paying off your credit cards or focus on getting a new job even if it means spending money on a new suit and a resume? I think the choice is obvious, somehow Washington does not.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
The Need To Cut Spending...Later
As deficit reduction talks continue there are rumors that spending cuts agreed to by Democrats and Republicans could exceed $1 trillion, it has been cited that this would be the largest amount of cuts on record. This number was agreed to prior to Republican Congressional leaders Eric Cantor and Jon Kyl walking away from deficit reduction talks that I wrote about in a previous post. According to recent reports there still has been no serious discussion on revenue increases in the form of closing tax loopholes and ending tax credits for those who no longer need them. As I've stated previously in multiple posts I agree that we must address spending, but now is not the time to do so. Obviously I don't expect you to just take my word for it, after all I am not an economist nor have received any education in the field beyond a few basic economics courses. I have arrived at my opinion base on what I've read and listened to from those who are economists and do have substantial education in the field of economics. What I'm more excited about is that now I actually have reports that support what I've been saying, within the past few weeks the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities have both release reports warning against cutting spending while the economy is still recovering. I hereby present them to you for your consideration.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released a report on June 28th warning that deeper than necessary cuts states are making harm the economic recovery and their long-term economic interests. This report also warns against cutting funds to these cash-strapped states and proposes continuing emergency Medicaid payments to states as needed. You'll notice a theme to what cuts states are making as outlined in the report, they are gutting education and Medicaid while not addressing losses in revenue.
This is a short 5-page report that is written in layman's terms, I encourage you to read it:
New Fiscal Year Brings Further Budget Cuts to Most States, Slowing Economic Recovery, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, June 28, 2011
The Congressional Budget Office released their 2011 long-term budget outlook a few weeks ago and also warn against enacting large spending cuts while the economy is still in recovery. After stating that enacting large spending cuts now would harm economic recovery the report goes on to say "However, the sooner that medium and long-term changes to tax and spending policies are agreed on, and the sooner they are carried out once the economy recovers, the smaller will be the damage to the economy from growing federal debt" (emphasis added). So debating cuts now is recommended, but they are warning against enacting them just yet.
You can read the 4-page summary report here:
CBO's 2011 Long-Term Budget Outlook Summary, Congressional Budget Office, June 2011
If you hunger for more charts, graphs, and economic speak you can read the full 108-page report here:
CBO's 2011 Long-Term Budget Outlook, Congressional Budget Office, June 2011
I am not saying that we don't need spending cuts, as both of these reports demonstrate our current revenue and spending levels are unsustainable, but the economic recovery is delicate and enacting large spending cuts now would be devastating. I haven't heard a single member of Congress from either party say that we don't need cuts, that is an unrealistic position, but almost every single Republican member of Congress says that we shouldn't "raise taxes" which is an absolutely ridiculous position to take. First, nobody involved in the current deficit reduction debates has proposed raising taxes on anybody as far as I'm aware, what they have proposed is ending certain credits and closing tax loopholes. Closing these loopholes and ending credits isn't "raising taxes" it's reducing spending through the tax code, these types of tax benefits are spending policies and should be subjected to cuts just like any other spending. According to the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC Exxon Mobil makes a profit of $5 million per hour (you can see the video here along with how much they made in profit as she was speaking), do they really need their tax subsidy? Do corporations who are doing better than middle-class America really need a tax credit to buy private jets while at the same time states are slashing education and asking our seniors and the disabled to pay more for their healthcare?
Solving our long-term deficit problem will take a balanced approach to include spending cuts and revenue increases, not just one or the other. The faster our economy recovers and the faster we can get people back to work (both of which will probably require the government to temporarily spend more money) the faster we can enact deficit reducing solutions. But we need to take it one step at a time, these are completely separate issues that you can't just lump together or find a singular solution for. Step #1: Spend whatever it takes to get America back to work. That's why Republicans were given control of the House, because they campaigned on being able to create jobs better than the Democrats, it's July and there still hasn't been a jobs bill. Instead they've misread and/or used the election results as an excuse to cut Medicare, education, collective bargaining, and draft legislation that gives the government more control over your personal life.
I wanted to end with a link to a Newsweek article written by former President Bill Clinton on June 19th. In it he lists 14 ways to put America back to work and considering he oversaw the largest peacetime economic expansion in US history it might behoove members of Congress and President Obama to consider some of these ideas.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released a report on June 28th warning that deeper than necessary cuts states are making harm the economic recovery and their long-term economic interests. This report also warns against cutting funds to these cash-strapped states and proposes continuing emergency Medicaid payments to states as needed. You'll notice a theme to what cuts states are making as outlined in the report, they are gutting education and Medicaid while not addressing losses in revenue.
This is a short 5-page report that is written in layman's terms, I encourage you to read it:
New Fiscal Year Brings Further Budget Cuts to Most States, Slowing Economic Recovery, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, June 28, 2011
The Congressional Budget Office released their 2011 long-term budget outlook a few weeks ago and also warn against enacting large spending cuts while the economy is still in recovery. After stating that enacting large spending cuts now would harm economic recovery the report goes on to say "However, the sooner that medium and long-term changes to tax and spending policies are agreed on, and the sooner they are carried out once the economy recovers, the smaller will be the damage to the economy from growing federal debt" (emphasis added). So debating cuts now is recommended, but they are warning against enacting them just yet.
You can read the 4-page summary report here:
CBO's 2011 Long-Term Budget Outlook Summary, Congressional Budget Office, June 2011
If you hunger for more charts, graphs, and economic speak you can read the full 108-page report here:
CBO's 2011 Long-Term Budget Outlook, Congressional Budget Office, June 2011
I am not saying that we don't need spending cuts, as both of these reports demonstrate our current revenue and spending levels are unsustainable, but the economic recovery is delicate and enacting large spending cuts now would be devastating. I haven't heard a single member of Congress from either party say that we don't need cuts, that is an unrealistic position, but almost every single Republican member of Congress says that we shouldn't "raise taxes" which is an absolutely ridiculous position to take. First, nobody involved in the current deficit reduction debates has proposed raising taxes on anybody as far as I'm aware, what they have proposed is ending certain credits and closing tax loopholes. Closing these loopholes and ending credits isn't "raising taxes" it's reducing spending through the tax code, these types of tax benefits are spending policies and should be subjected to cuts just like any other spending. According to the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC Exxon Mobil makes a profit of $5 million per hour (you can see the video here along with how much they made in profit as she was speaking), do they really need their tax subsidy? Do corporations who are doing better than middle-class America really need a tax credit to buy private jets while at the same time states are slashing education and asking our seniors and the disabled to pay more for their healthcare?
Solving our long-term deficit problem will take a balanced approach to include spending cuts and revenue increases, not just one or the other. The faster our economy recovers and the faster we can get people back to work (both of which will probably require the government to temporarily spend more money) the faster we can enact deficit reducing solutions. But we need to take it one step at a time, these are completely separate issues that you can't just lump together or find a singular solution for. Step #1: Spend whatever it takes to get America back to work. That's why Republicans were given control of the House, because they campaigned on being able to create jobs better than the Democrats, it's July and there still hasn't been a jobs bill. Instead they've misread and/or used the election results as an excuse to cut Medicare, education, collective bargaining, and draft legislation that gives the government more control over your personal life.
I wanted to end with a link to a Newsweek article written by former President Bill Clinton on June 19th. In it he lists 14 ways to put America back to work and considering he oversaw the largest peacetime economic expansion in US history it might behoove members of Congress and President Obama to consider some of these ideas.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Taxpayers Infringe Corporate Speech According To Court
On Monday the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of large anonymous campaign contributions in a 5-4 conservative majority ruling on Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC et al. v Bennett, Secretary of State of Arizona et al. This ruling essentially gives privately funded candidates greater speech over publicly funded candidates.
In 1998 the people of Arizona voted on and passed the Arizona Clean Elections Act providing candidates who opted out of private campaign financing a public grant. This Act would also provide additional grants if the candidate was outspent by a privately funded opponent to help keep a level playing field. This Act was put on the ballot in response to corrupt campaigns that had occurred previously in an attempt to make a cleaner system.
The US Supreme court has now ruled against this law, more specifically the "trigger" mechanism of the law that allows for additional grants to help keep the candidates financially even. The court is arguing that these additional grants infringed on the speech of private donors. I don't think that anybody was surprised by this ruling as the same conservative judges that brought us the Citizen's United ruling arguing that corporations were citizens and could give unlimited contributions to campaigns. We saw the effects of that ruling in this most recent election where not only can corporations, groups, and even other countries donate to political campaigns they can do so secretly through 3rd party groups (Super PAC is a term you'll hear a lot of come 2012).
Obviously the Arizona Clean Elections Act in no way, shape, or form infringes upon the speech of private donors. Nothing in the law restricts how much a privately funded candidate can raise, it just allows for a publicly funded candidate have a similar level of funds. It doesn't even provide for the publicly funded candidate to receive equivalent funding as there are restrictions as to what percentage of the public campaign finance pool can be used during an election cycle. The Act was intended to provide incentive for candidates to forgo private funds, which can be secret and unlimited, in hopes to make elections more transparent and fair.
The people of Arizona lost on Monday, they were victims of a corrupt system and were smart enough to recognize that and passed a law to help clean up elections and ensure their voices were heard instead of being drowned out by corporate dollars. But the conservative members of the Supreme Court overruled the people of Arizona and continued the work they started with Citizen's United to ensure that corporations and other interests were able to play a larger role in our elections and essentially allows them to buy and intimidate candidates and politicians. We know corporations are funding our elections, but maybe they're buying members of the Supreme Court as well, maybe we should ask Justice Thomas.
In 1998 the people of Arizona voted on and passed the Arizona Clean Elections Act providing candidates who opted out of private campaign financing a public grant. This Act would also provide additional grants if the candidate was outspent by a privately funded opponent to help keep a level playing field. This Act was put on the ballot in response to corrupt campaigns that had occurred previously in an attempt to make a cleaner system.
The US Supreme court has now ruled against this law, more specifically the "trigger" mechanism of the law that allows for additional grants to help keep the candidates financially even. The court is arguing that these additional grants infringed on the speech of private donors. I don't think that anybody was surprised by this ruling as the same conservative judges that brought us the Citizen's United ruling arguing that corporations were citizens and could give unlimited contributions to campaigns. We saw the effects of that ruling in this most recent election where not only can corporations, groups, and even other countries donate to political campaigns they can do so secretly through 3rd party groups (Super PAC is a term you'll hear a lot of come 2012).
Obviously the Arizona Clean Elections Act in no way, shape, or form infringes upon the speech of private donors. Nothing in the law restricts how much a privately funded candidate can raise, it just allows for a publicly funded candidate have a similar level of funds. It doesn't even provide for the publicly funded candidate to receive equivalent funding as there are restrictions as to what percentage of the public campaign finance pool can be used during an election cycle. The Act was intended to provide incentive for candidates to forgo private funds, which can be secret and unlimited, in hopes to make elections more transparent and fair.
The people of Arizona lost on Monday, they were victims of a corrupt system and were smart enough to recognize that and passed a law to help clean up elections and ensure their voices were heard instead of being drowned out by corporate dollars. But the conservative members of the Supreme Court overruled the people of Arizona and continued the work they started with Citizen's United to ensure that corporations and other interests were able to play a larger role in our elections and essentially allows them to buy and intimidate candidates and politicians. We know corporations are funding our elections, but maybe they're buying members of the Supreme Court as well, maybe we should ask Justice Thomas.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Why They Walked Out
The first entry I wrote on this blog after the introductory post was about the debt ceiling, in that post I mentioned that Republicans would hold a vote on raising the debt ceiling hostage in exchange for something but that ultimately they were bluffing and would vote to raise it even if Dems did nothing (you can read that post here). I still feel today as I did then that the Republicans are bluffing and that Democrats really don't have to address their demands and when the time comes that they have to vote in August enough of them will cross the aisle, and take the bullet for their party, to ensure the ceiling is raised. But in light of new events this week regarding bipartisan negotiations I felt it was important to revisit the issue and provide more insight into what Republicans really stand for.
Scheduled this week were four bipartisan negotiation sessions on the debt ceiling led by Vice President Joe Biden. Republican attendees of these negotiations included House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl who both decided to walk out of talks on Thursday. Why did they walk out of negotiations? Because Democrats wanted to propose increasing revenue in addition to spending cuts. That's right, because Democrats wanted to take a serious and balanced approach to the debt ceiling negotiations and evaluate all possible solutions Republican leaders felt that to be so unreasonable that they could no longer participate in negotiations. And this behavior continues to prove a point I make all the time, Republicans represent the wealthiest of Americans and don't care about the middle-class.
Just to be clear, raising the debt ceiling doesn't mean that we have to increase spending as it is the budget that controls spending. Raising the debt ceiling ensures that we are able to "pay our bills" to those that we have already borrowed from and to cover new borrowing that stems from budgets. Spending debates are better left for when Congress plans the next budget, but Republicans insisted that the debt ceiling vote should be used to address spending and the Democrats have capitulated. Democrats have been open to cuts proposed by the GOP in these negotiations including cuts to Medicare (provider-side cuts), cuts to the Pell Grant program, and other cuts that are tough for Democrats to swallow. But as soon as Dems propose cutting tax subsidies to Big Oil, eliminating tax loopholes for corporations who don't currently pay federal taxes, and shifting some tax subsidies that go to those making over $500,000 a year to the middle-class the Republicans walk out. Republicans want the middle-class, the elderly, and children to carry the economic burden. We've seen it in their budget proposal and bills that have been passed in the GOP led House. Not once has the GOP ever asked the wealthy and corporations to sacrifice anything this session. Not once. I've written about this before and I'm sure you've read articles about this but it's worth repeating here. CEOs and corporations are doing better now than they ever did before 2008 while the middle-class continues to struggle and all the GOP can come up with are cuts to programs working Americans, children and the elderly depend on, cuts to things that protect the middle-class and balking at any proposal that those who are doing very well pay a few percent more in taxes (or any taxes at all in some cases).
Their motive is to take care of those who fund their campaigns but they claim that they don't want to burden the "job creators." Supply-side economics (aka trickle-down economics) doesn't work, we've tried it and it costs us jobs and creates recessions. I was talking with my Dad the other day and he heard somebody explain the GOP's theory this way, and I think it's the most simplistic way this can be illustrated:
Let's say that I'm a CEO of a company that produces Widgets and last year we produced 150,000 Widgets but only sold 148,000 Widgets. I still have 2,000 Widgets sitting in my warehouse that I can't move. The economy isn't doing great and unemployment is up so the GOP gives my company (and me personally) a tax cut, not only do they give me a tax rate cut they also give my company a tax holiday reducing our tax rate to 5% for this year. Bitchin!!! I can hire a bunch of new employees to help us make more Widgets! But wait, I couldn't even sell the 150,000 Widgets we produced last year so if I hire more employees and can produce 250,000 Widgets I can still only sell 149,000. If I hired more people just because I got a tax cut my investors would hang me by my thumbs! I like my job so I'll just use the tax cut to by up more company stock and inflate the value of my company instead.
That's how supply-side economics works, you can give corporations all the tax breaks you want but without demand they're not going to produce any more than they can sell and in turn will not hire any more workers. To get the economy going you have to invest in jobs. Most Republicans know this, they oppose tax hikes on the wealthy and corporations because they fund their campaigns not because they think it will create any new jobs. But if they say that they can't get you to vote for them.
Republican leadership walked out of debt ceiling negotiations because they don't even want to hear anything about closing tax loopholes or raising taxes on the wealthy but before they left they made sure that Dems agreed to cuts that would harm middle-class Americans. Another reason they walked out was to shove the issue to Obama so that when they eventually do vote to close tax loopholes or raise taxes they can just blame it on the President and say that they had no choice because the debt ceiling had to be raised. Because as I've said before they will raise the debt ceiling but they're going to position themselves to their political advantage first.
Scheduled this week were four bipartisan negotiation sessions on the debt ceiling led by Vice President Joe Biden. Republican attendees of these negotiations included House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl who both decided to walk out of talks on Thursday. Why did they walk out of negotiations? Because Democrats wanted to propose increasing revenue in addition to spending cuts. That's right, because Democrats wanted to take a serious and balanced approach to the debt ceiling negotiations and evaluate all possible solutions Republican leaders felt that to be so unreasonable that they could no longer participate in negotiations. And this behavior continues to prove a point I make all the time, Republicans represent the wealthiest of Americans and don't care about the middle-class.
Just to be clear, raising the debt ceiling doesn't mean that we have to increase spending as it is the budget that controls spending. Raising the debt ceiling ensures that we are able to "pay our bills" to those that we have already borrowed from and to cover new borrowing that stems from budgets. Spending debates are better left for when Congress plans the next budget, but Republicans insisted that the debt ceiling vote should be used to address spending and the Democrats have capitulated. Democrats have been open to cuts proposed by the GOP in these negotiations including cuts to Medicare (provider-side cuts), cuts to the Pell Grant program, and other cuts that are tough for Democrats to swallow. But as soon as Dems propose cutting tax subsidies to Big Oil, eliminating tax loopholes for corporations who don't currently pay federal taxes, and shifting some tax subsidies that go to those making over $500,000 a year to the middle-class the Republicans walk out. Republicans want the middle-class, the elderly, and children to carry the economic burden. We've seen it in their budget proposal and bills that have been passed in the GOP led House. Not once has the GOP ever asked the wealthy and corporations to sacrifice anything this session. Not once. I've written about this before and I'm sure you've read articles about this but it's worth repeating here. CEOs and corporations are doing better now than they ever did before 2008 while the middle-class continues to struggle and all the GOP can come up with are cuts to programs working Americans, children and the elderly depend on, cuts to things that protect the middle-class and balking at any proposal that those who are doing very well pay a few percent more in taxes (or any taxes at all in some cases).
Their motive is to take care of those who fund their campaigns but they claim that they don't want to burden the "job creators." Supply-side economics (aka trickle-down economics) doesn't work, we've tried it and it costs us jobs and creates recessions. I was talking with my Dad the other day and he heard somebody explain the GOP's theory this way, and I think it's the most simplistic way this can be illustrated:
Let's say that I'm a CEO of a company that produces Widgets and last year we produced 150,000 Widgets but only sold 148,000 Widgets. I still have 2,000 Widgets sitting in my warehouse that I can't move. The economy isn't doing great and unemployment is up so the GOP gives my company (and me personally) a tax cut, not only do they give me a tax rate cut they also give my company a tax holiday reducing our tax rate to 5% for this year. Bitchin!!! I can hire a bunch of new employees to help us make more Widgets! But wait, I couldn't even sell the 150,000 Widgets we produced last year so if I hire more employees and can produce 250,000 Widgets I can still only sell 149,000. If I hired more people just because I got a tax cut my investors would hang me by my thumbs! I like my job so I'll just use the tax cut to by up more company stock and inflate the value of my company instead.
That's how supply-side economics works, you can give corporations all the tax breaks you want but without demand they're not going to produce any more than they can sell and in turn will not hire any more workers. To get the economy going you have to invest in jobs. Most Republicans know this, they oppose tax hikes on the wealthy and corporations because they fund their campaigns not because they think it will create any new jobs. But if they say that they can't get you to vote for them.
Republican leadership walked out of debt ceiling negotiations because they don't even want to hear anything about closing tax loopholes or raising taxes on the wealthy but before they left they made sure that Dems agreed to cuts that would harm middle-class Americans. Another reason they walked out was to shove the issue to Obama so that when they eventually do vote to close tax loopholes or raise taxes they can just blame it on the President and say that they had no choice because the debt ceiling had to be raised. Because as I've said before they will raise the debt ceiling but they're going to position themselves to their political advantage first.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Upholding The War Powers Act
I've been putting off writing a blog entry on this topic for a week or so now, partially because I've been busy but primarily because I hoped there would be some new development regarding Libya making what follows irrelevant. But as you probably are aware we have passed the 90-day mark for our operation in Libya and are continuing operations even though the War Powers Act requires that all actions cease after 90 days if there is no authorization from Congress.
The War Powers Act was passed by Congress in 1973 in an effort to check presidential powers after US commitment to armed conflict is undertaken without congressional authorization. It requires the President to notify Congress of committing US forces within 48 hours and allows operations to continue without approval from Congress for 60 days, beyond which an additional 30 days are allowed for withdrawal. The 90 day period from when we began action in Libya expired on the 20th. The President has expressed that the War Powers Act is a valid law, unlike some previous presidents who have questioned its constitutionality, but he claims that US involvement in Libya is exempt from the War Powers Act as it is a NATO mission. Although Mr. Obama isn't the first President to push the limits of the War Powers Act I am not aware of any administration continuing action beyond the 90-day period without congressional approval.
I am supportive of our efforts in Libya and I believe that President Obama did the right thing by using US resources in helping stop what would have been mass genocide. I can also understand the point that the President is making by claiming that NATO operations are exempt from the War Powers Act but I disagree with this assessment. There are certain obligations of NATO members when another member of NATO is the victim of hostilities but Libya is not a part of NATO and actions within that country certainly do not directly and immediately threaten our NATO allies. Even if another NATO member was the victim of hostilities I believe that as a nation we have a right to determine the extent of our involvement through Congress not by unilateral action of a President. Although NATO requires support in those types of situations it does not require military assistance. There are times when the President must act unilaterally due to time constraints, in today's world violence can flare-up with little notice and waiting on approval from Congress could cost lives, but there must be limits and conditions to that power and that's exactly what the War Powers Act was intended for.
Although I feel that President Obama is wrong on continuing action without congressional approval the blame is not his alone, Congress has failed to meet its obligation to check presidential power. Nowhere in the War Powers Act does it require Congress to wait for the President to do anything before they vote to continue or cease military involvement. The President is only required to brief Congress and even if the President fails to do this Congress can still act. There are some who have claimed that the President has failed to inform Congress of his actions, this is false, the administration has had continuous briefings with Congress to keep them informed of operations. And to be fair there have been members of Congress who have proposed bills dealing with Libya, but these have failed to pass as they do not have support from congressional leadership from either side of the aisle.
Congress must act and authorize the President to continue operations in Libya, failure to do so will set a dangerous precedent rendering the War Powers Act invalid. Just because congressional leaders agree with what we are doing in Libya doesn't mean that they will be in favor of any future conflict that extends past the authorized 90-day period and now that the precedent has been set it will be difficult to resolve the issue through the courts. If leaders in Congress feel the War Powers Act is out-dated then fix it or pass a new law but either way they can't let the Act die. We cannot create a situation where one person can make open-ended war, our voice is through Congress and they need to ensure we as citizens remain relevant.
The War Powers Act was passed by Congress in 1973 in an effort to check presidential powers after US commitment to armed conflict is undertaken without congressional authorization. It requires the President to notify Congress of committing US forces within 48 hours and allows operations to continue without approval from Congress for 60 days, beyond which an additional 30 days are allowed for withdrawal. The 90 day period from when we began action in Libya expired on the 20th. The President has expressed that the War Powers Act is a valid law, unlike some previous presidents who have questioned its constitutionality, but he claims that US involvement in Libya is exempt from the War Powers Act as it is a NATO mission. Although Mr. Obama isn't the first President to push the limits of the War Powers Act I am not aware of any administration continuing action beyond the 90-day period without congressional approval.
I am supportive of our efforts in Libya and I believe that President Obama did the right thing by using US resources in helping stop what would have been mass genocide. I can also understand the point that the President is making by claiming that NATO operations are exempt from the War Powers Act but I disagree with this assessment. There are certain obligations of NATO members when another member of NATO is the victim of hostilities but Libya is not a part of NATO and actions within that country certainly do not directly and immediately threaten our NATO allies. Even if another NATO member was the victim of hostilities I believe that as a nation we have a right to determine the extent of our involvement through Congress not by unilateral action of a President. Although NATO requires support in those types of situations it does not require military assistance. There are times when the President must act unilaterally due to time constraints, in today's world violence can flare-up with little notice and waiting on approval from Congress could cost lives, but there must be limits and conditions to that power and that's exactly what the War Powers Act was intended for.
Although I feel that President Obama is wrong on continuing action without congressional approval the blame is not his alone, Congress has failed to meet its obligation to check presidential power. Nowhere in the War Powers Act does it require Congress to wait for the President to do anything before they vote to continue or cease military involvement. The President is only required to brief Congress and even if the President fails to do this Congress can still act. There are some who have claimed that the President has failed to inform Congress of his actions, this is false, the administration has had continuous briefings with Congress to keep them informed of operations. And to be fair there have been members of Congress who have proposed bills dealing with Libya, but these have failed to pass as they do not have support from congressional leadership from either side of the aisle.
Congress must act and authorize the President to continue operations in Libya, failure to do so will set a dangerous precedent rendering the War Powers Act invalid. Just because congressional leaders agree with what we are doing in Libya doesn't mean that they will be in favor of any future conflict that extends past the authorized 90-day period and now that the precedent has been set it will be difficult to resolve the issue through the courts. If leaders in Congress feel the War Powers Act is out-dated then fix it or pass a new law but either way they can't let the Act die. We cannot create a situation where one person can make open-ended war, our voice is through Congress and they need to ensure we as citizens remain relevant.
Friday, June 17, 2011
The Alienable Right Part II: Medicare
Earlier this month I wrote an entry titled The Alienable Right Part I: Medicaid with the hope of educating readers on Medicaid and dispelling many of the misconceptions of that program. More broadly The Alienable Right series is intended to highlight how we have failed to completely meet the Right to Life that was listed in the Declaration of Independence, placing a spotlight on programs that are meeting this promise, defending those programs that are under attack, and promoting my views on where healthcare should be in this country. I humbly submit Part II of this series which focuses on Medicare.
I'm sure you've seen a lot of coverage in the news lately regarding Medicare and the GOP's plan to eliminate the program as we know it and replace it with a voucher system. If you have read my post on the GOP's plan you will recall that, if enacted, it would raise the out-of-pocket costs of future retirees from the currently projected 27% to 68% without addressing the rising costs of healthcare. Medicare is one of the few programs the government actually got right and it is a program that is vital to our seniors and to all of us who will become seniors.
Medicare was first created in 1965 and is a social insurance plan that is available to US citizens ages 65 and older and is funded by the payroll tax and premiums deducted from Social Security checks. It is also available to certain other groups including those who collect Social Security Disability Insurance. Medicare is broken down into different groups referred to as "parts."
Part A: This part covers hospital stays.
Part B: Covers outpatient services and items not covered under Part A.
Part C: Also know as Medicare Advantage, Part C was created in 1997 to allow seniors to have Medicare via private insurance as opposed to enrolling in Parts A and B and includes prescription drug coverage.
Part D: Created in 2006 this allows those enrolled in Parts A or B to enroll in a Prescription Drug Program which is administered by private insurance.
The intent of Medicare was to provide affordable medical care to citizens 65 or older who traditionally were unable to afford the inflated premiums and co-pays offered by private insurance. During the Kennedy administration it was noted that only 56% of seniors had health insurance, this was due in large part because of cost both on the part of seniors and insurance. Many insurers did not offer coverage to seniors or did so at unaffordable rates, this was because seniors required greater care and would not have a long life expectancy if enrolling in an insurance plan at an older age, therefore insurance companies charged high premiums to offset these costs to remain profitable. Now I normally don't stand up for private insurance but in this case I do not find them at fault for that practice, their primary goal as a business is to make a profit and seniors in need of care would have eaten away at those profits and required higher premiums. Medicare was the answer to this problem, it was a way to provide affordable insurance to seniors and ensure that more than 56% of them had access to care. Medicare is not a "free" medical program as many think, there are out-of-pocket costs including coinsurance and premiums. On average Medicare covers 80% of the medical costs of enrolees and coverage varies based on income level.
Medicare has met its intended goal, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute Medicare covered 96.1% of the elderly in 2001 while only 0.8% were without insurance. I mentioned previously that the government actually got this program right, they've managed to insure nearly all of our nation's seniors and have done so efficiently. There are a lot of numbers floating around as to what the administrative costs of Medicare are, many site 1% or 2% but I am more inclined to believe that number is closer to 6%. But just think about that for a minute, the government has found a way to insure a large percentage of the population while only spending 6% on overhead compare to 20% or more by private insurance. Now it's not that private insurance is wasting a lot more money it's just that the business of private insurance requires more cost than the government requires. This program works, but the GOP wants to kill it.
As I've written about previously the GOP wants to take this efficient program that insures over 96% of seniors with an average out-of-pocket cost of 20% (less if enrolled in supplemental insurance) and turn it over to private insurers, the same private insurers who charged unaffordable premiums prior to the introduction of Medicare. According to the Congressional Budget Office if the GOP's plan is enacted by the time my generation becomes eligible instead of paying 27% out-of-pocket for medical care we will be paying 68% of our healthcare costs. It is unrealistic to think that entire generations will be able to save the additional half million or million dollars needed to cover these additional costs. Their plan also does not address how increases in healthcare costs will be handled, it is still open-ended as to whether or not the voucher will increase in kind. I suspect it will be up to seniors to come up with the extra dollars to cover the increased costs. It is no secret that private insurance has wanted to get their hands on seniors dollars ever since Medicare was enacted (see Medicare Parts C and D) and Republicans are ready to hand the elderly over on a silver platter, I guess that's what hundreds of millions of dollars a year spent lobbying and funding campaigns will get you.
I do believe there are ways to reduce what the government spends on Medicare and we can do so without placing the burden on the backs of our seniors. The Democrats were able to find a way to save $500 billion in Medicare costs over the next 10 years in the Affordable Care Act and did so without affecting Medicare recipients. Another proposal is just common sense and the reason it hasn't been accepted by Republicans is because the pharmaceutical companies have them in their pockets; that proposal is government negotiated prescription drug costs. That's right, as of right now the government is not allowed to negotiate prescription drug costs, the GOP made sure this restriction was included in Medicare Part D. If the government were allowed to negotiate prescription drug costs just as the VA does it would save tens of billions of dollars each year, several hundred billion in savings over the next 10 years.
Medicare is a necessary program for our nation's seniors, it literally saves lives and is one of the few ways our government has recognized that healthcare should be a right and not a privilege. We cannot allow those in government who are funded by private insurance destroy this program, we cannot go back to a time when only 56% of our seniors had health insurance. If Medicare is replaced and replaced with a voucher system I would surmise that the rate of insured would actually fall below 50% and in the end the government will be paying for the cost of those uninsured, repealing Medicare just doesn't make sense and ultimately won't save us any money.
I'm sure you've seen a lot of coverage in the news lately regarding Medicare and the GOP's plan to eliminate the program as we know it and replace it with a voucher system. If you have read my post on the GOP's plan you will recall that, if enacted, it would raise the out-of-pocket costs of future retirees from the currently projected 27% to 68% without addressing the rising costs of healthcare. Medicare is one of the few programs the government actually got right and it is a program that is vital to our seniors and to all of us who will become seniors.
Medicare was first created in 1965 and is a social insurance plan that is available to US citizens ages 65 and older and is funded by the payroll tax and premiums deducted from Social Security checks. It is also available to certain other groups including those who collect Social Security Disability Insurance. Medicare is broken down into different groups referred to as "parts."
Part A: This part covers hospital stays.
Part B: Covers outpatient services and items not covered under Part A.
Part C: Also know as Medicare Advantage, Part C was created in 1997 to allow seniors to have Medicare via private insurance as opposed to enrolling in Parts A and B and includes prescription drug coverage.
Part D: Created in 2006 this allows those enrolled in Parts A or B to enroll in a Prescription Drug Program which is administered by private insurance.
The intent of Medicare was to provide affordable medical care to citizens 65 or older who traditionally were unable to afford the inflated premiums and co-pays offered by private insurance. During the Kennedy administration it was noted that only 56% of seniors had health insurance, this was due in large part because of cost both on the part of seniors and insurance. Many insurers did not offer coverage to seniors or did so at unaffordable rates, this was because seniors required greater care and would not have a long life expectancy if enrolling in an insurance plan at an older age, therefore insurance companies charged high premiums to offset these costs to remain profitable. Now I normally don't stand up for private insurance but in this case I do not find them at fault for that practice, their primary goal as a business is to make a profit and seniors in need of care would have eaten away at those profits and required higher premiums. Medicare was the answer to this problem, it was a way to provide affordable insurance to seniors and ensure that more than 56% of them had access to care. Medicare is not a "free" medical program as many think, there are out-of-pocket costs including coinsurance and premiums. On average Medicare covers 80% of the medical costs of enrolees and coverage varies based on income level.
Medicare has met its intended goal, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute Medicare covered 96.1% of the elderly in 2001 while only 0.8% were without insurance. I mentioned previously that the government actually got this program right, they've managed to insure nearly all of our nation's seniors and have done so efficiently. There are a lot of numbers floating around as to what the administrative costs of Medicare are, many site 1% or 2% but I am more inclined to believe that number is closer to 6%. But just think about that for a minute, the government has found a way to insure a large percentage of the population while only spending 6% on overhead compare to 20% or more by private insurance. Now it's not that private insurance is wasting a lot more money it's just that the business of private insurance requires more cost than the government requires. This program works, but the GOP wants to kill it.
As I've written about previously the GOP wants to take this efficient program that insures over 96% of seniors with an average out-of-pocket cost of 20% (less if enrolled in supplemental insurance) and turn it over to private insurers, the same private insurers who charged unaffordable premiums prior to the introduction of Medicare. According to the Congressional Budget Office if the GOP's plan is enacted by the time my generation becomes eligible instead of paying 27% out-of-pocket for medical care we will be paying 68% of our healthcare costs. It is unrealistic to think that entire generations will be able to save the additional half million or million dollars needed to cover these additional costs. Their plan also does not address how increases in healthcare costs will be handled, it is still open-ended as to whether or not the voucher will increase in kind. I suspect it will be up to seniors to come up with the extra dollars to cover the increased costs. It is no secret that private insurance has wanted to get their hands on seniors dollars ever since Medicare was enacted (see Medicare Parts C and D) and Republicans are ready to hand the elderly over on a silver platter, I guess that's what hundreds of millions of dollars a year spent lobbying and funding campaigns will get you.
I do believe there are ways to reduce what the government spends on Medicare and we can do so without placing the burden on the backs of our seniors. The Democrats were able to find a way to save $500 billion in Medicare costs over the next 10 years in the Affordable Care Act and did so without affecting Medicare recipients. Another proposal is just common sense and the reason it hasn't been accepted by Republicans is because the pharmaceutical companies have them in their pockets; that proposal is government negotiated prescription drug costs. That's right, as of right now the government is not allowed to negotiate prescription drug costs, the GOP made sure this restriction was included in Medicare Part D. If the government were allowed to negotiate prescription drug costs just as the VA does it would save tens of billions of dollars each year, several hundred billion in savings over the next 10 years.
Medicare is a necessary program for our nation's seniors, it literally saves lives and is one of the few ways our government has recognized that healthcare should be a right and not a privilege. We cannot allow those in government who are funded by private insurance destroy this program, we cannot go back to a time when only 56% of our seniors had health insurance. If Medicare is replaced and replaced with a voucher system I would surmise that the rate of insured would actually fall below 50% and in the end the government will be paying for the cost of those uninsured, repealing Medicare just doesn't make sense and ultimately won't save us any money.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Why Are Guns Off Limits?
March was the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Reagan in which then Press Secretary James Brady was severely wounded and permanently disabled. Yesterday marked the 6 month anniversary of the Tuscon, Arizona shootings by Jared Lee Loughner that killed six and wounded 14 others including Representative Gabrielle Giffords. Six months after this incident there has been no new gun control laws passed to help prevent this type of event from happening again and no real effort to renew the "Brady Bill," a gun control law named after the aforementioned James Brady which expired in 2004. So I have to ask, why do guns always appear to be off limits?
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees among other things "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (and that right) shall not be infringed." I don't think that there can be any argument that the citizens of the United States don't have a right to posses firearms or that firearms of all types can be outlawed, I feel that the Constitution clearly demonstrates this. I have no problems with firearms in general, in fact I've enjoyed recreationally and as part of my former career firing off rounds from shotguns, .22s, handguns, and various assault rifles over the years. I don't generally take issue with homeowners having a firearm in their house for protection as long as they've been properly educated in firearm safety and employ commonsense safeguards. But anytime an "anti-gun" activist or politician puts forward an idea to restrict sales of certain types of firearms or to establish some sort of safety regulation there is this irrational over-the-top outrage from "pro-gun" advocates and associations such as the National Rifle Association (NRA). Even when such calls for regulation come in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy like the on in Tuscon.
At 10:10am on January 8, 2011 Jared Lee Loughner, armed with a 9mm pistol, opened fire on Representative Giffords and other bystanders at a Tuscon area Safeway. Loughner was eventually subdued by civilians on site prior to the arrival of law enforcement. By the time the smoke cleared 6 people were killed including 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green. Loughner wasn't apprehended by armed citizens, nobody drew a gun on Mr. Loughner nor fired at him, he was subdued by multiple bystanders when he had to stop to reload. As we now know Jared Loughner had loaded his pistol with a 30 round magazine, known as a "high capacity" magazine. Would 9-year-old Christina still be alive today if Loughner only had access to a standard 10 round magazine? Tough to say, but we do know that casualties would have been significantly less if he was limited to 10 rounds, 20 people were shot that day and that number could have easily been cut in half if high capacity magazines were still outlawed. That's right I said still outlawed. From 1994 to 2004 high capacity magazines such as the one Jared Loughner used in Tuscon were illegal thanks to the Brady Bill, but that law was allowed to expire in 2004 and congress has made no serious effort to renew it.
There were calls to again outlaw high capacity magazines soon after the nation learned of the facts that Loughner used a 30 round magazine and was apprehended only after he had to stop to reload . Within a few weeks of this tragedy Chris Cox, Executive Director of the NRA's Institute for Legal Action, wrote an op-ed piece that included a once sentence statement acknowledging the tragedy while the 8 paragraphs that followed promoted the need for high capacity magazines like the one that Loughner used to kill 6 people. This is where I disconnect from gun-rights groups such as the NRA. High capacity magazines had been outlawed for a period of 10 years with no issue, I don't know of a single incident where a law abiding citizen in the US needed a 30 round magazine to defend him or herself during that period and in fact I feel that only criminals benefit when these magazines are legalized. In Virginia the rate of handguns seized by police with high capacity magazines was 10% during the period when they were illegal, that rate jumped to 22% after the law had expired. Restricting magazine capacity in no way infringes on an American's right to posses a handgun, it is just a commonsense measure to help prevent mass killings by criminals.
There have been some new gun control laws proposed in both the House and Senate this session, but none of them have made it out of committee for a vote due to the lobbying efforts of gun manufacturers, sellers, and the NRA. HR 591 would require anyone selling firearms at gun shows to be licensed and to conduct criminal background checks with each transaction. This bill does not prevent any law-abiding citizen from purchasing or selling firearms, all it does is allow the government to know who is selling firearms (because they would have to be licensed) and ensure that violent criminals and terrorists are unable to obtain firearms at gun shows. How can any rational and reasonable person be against this? It is still stuck in committee. HR 1552 would prevent anyone who was convicted of a violent crime as a juvenile from being able to purchase firearms, this is already the law for someone who commits a violent crime as an adult. I don't think that it would be unreasonable to expect that somebody who has demonstrated that they are unable to control their temper and has a history of violence towards others would be unfit to posses a firearm. This bill is still stuck in committee. HR 645 is a bill that would overrule the District of Columbia's decision to not allow residents to own handguns or ammunition for handguns, and it would overrule DC's decision to require residents to register all firearms. I guess government overreach is okay in certain circumstances if you're a Republican. I don't think that it is unreasonable for a city to require it's citizens to register their firearms, especially a city that has the highest per-carpita murder rate. They even mention that DC has the highest per-capita murder rate in the bill and they attempt to use that to justify looser gun restrictions for DC! Can you believe it?! HR 1181 requires anybody who is not allowed to own a firearm be included on the instant criminal background check system and that criminal background checks would be required for all firearm sales. Really, do I have to say it? I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that we have a database listing all those who aren't allowed to have firearms (kind of like a no-fly list for guns) or that we have to make sure somebody is allowed to actually buy a gun before selling it to them, especially when we can do so instantly. This does not infringe on any law-abiding citizen's right to own a firearm. It's a commonsense approach to keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and terrorists.
It's been six months since the tragic killings in Tuscon, Arizona and 6 years since the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act or "Brady Bill" has expired and we still don't have any new firearm laws or many continuations of Brady Bill provisions. Guns should not be "off-the-table" on the floors of the House and Senate as they appear to be currently. I'm sure you've heard the adage "guns don't kill people, people kill people" but why are some standing against legislation that would keep guns out of the hands of those particular "people" the adage refers to?
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees among other things "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (and that right) shall not be infringed." I don't think that there can be any argument that the citizens of the United States don't have a right to posses firearms or that firearms of all types can be outlawed, I feel that the Constitution clearly demonstrates this. I have no problems with firearms in general, in fact I've enjoyed recreationally and as part of my former career firing off rounds from shotguns, .22s, handguns, and various assault rifles over the years. I don't generally take issue with homeowners having a firearm in their house for protection as long as they've been properly educated in firearm safety and employ commonsense safeguards. But anytime an "anti-gun" activist or politician puts forward an idea to restrict sales of certain types of firearms or to establish some sort of safety regulation there is this irrational over-the-top outrage from "pro-gun" advocates and associations such as the National Rifle Association (NRA). Even when such calls for regulation come in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy like the on in Tuscon.
At 10:10am on January 8, 2011 Jared Lee Loughner, armed with a 9mm pistol, opened fire on Representative Giffords and other bystanders at a Tuscon area Safeway. Loughner was eventually subdued by civilians on site prior to the arrival of law enforcement. By the time the smoke cleared 6 people were killed including 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green. Loughner wasn't apprehended by armed citizens, nobody drew a gun on Mr. Loughner nor fired at him, he was subdued by multiple bystanders when he had to stop to reload. As we now know Jared Loughner had loaded his pistol with a 30 round magazine, known as a "high capacity" magazine. Would 9-year-old Christina still be alive today if Loughner only had access to a standard 10 round magazine? Tough to say, but we do know that casualties would have been significantly less if he was limited to 10 rounds, 20 people were shot that day and that number could have easily been cut in half if high capacity magazines were still outlawed. That's right I said still outlawed. From 1994 to 2004 high capacity magazines such as the one Jared Loughner used in Tuscon were illegal thanks to the Brady Bill, but that law was allowed to expire in 2004 and congress has made no serious effort to renew it.
There were calls to again outlaw high capacity magazines soon after the nation learned of the facts that Loughner used a 30 round magazine and was apprehended only after he had to stop to reload . Within a few weeks of this tragedy Chris Cox, Executive Director of the NRA's Institute for Legal Action, wrote an op-ed piece that included a once sentence statement acknowledging the tragedy while the 8 paragraphs that followed promoted the need for high capacity magazines like the one that Loughner used to kill 6 people. This is where I disconnect from gun-rights groups such as the NRA. High capacity magazines had been outlawed for a period of 10 years with no issue, I don't know of a single incident where a law abiding citizen in the US needed a 30 round magazine to defend him or herself during that period and in fact I feel that only criminals benefit when these magazines are legalized. In Virginia the rate of handguns seized by police with high capacity magazines was 10% during the period when they were illegal, that rate jumped to 22% after the law had expired. Restricting magazine capacity in no way infringes on an American's right to posses a handgun, it is just a commonsense measure to help prevent mass killings by criminals.
There have been some new gun control laws proposed in both the House and Senate this session, but none of them have made it out of committee for a vote due to the lobbying efforts of gun manufacturers, sellers, and the NRA. HR 591 would require anyone selling firearms at gun shows to be licensed and to conduct criminal background checks with each transaction. This bill does not prevent any law-abiding citizen from purchasing or selling firearms, all it does is allow the government to know who is selling firearms (because they would have to be licensed) and ensure that violent criminals and terrorists are unable to obtain firearms at gun shows. How can any rational and reasonable person be against this? It is still stuck in committee. HR 1552 would prevent anyone who was convicted of a violent crime as a juvenile from being able to purchase firearms, this is already the law for someone who commits a violent crime as an adult. I don't think that it would be unreasonable to expect that somebody who has demonstrated that they are unable to control their temper and has a history of violence towards others would be unfit to posses a firearm. This bill is still stuck in committee. HR 645 is a bill that would overrule the District of Columbia's decision to not allow residents to own handguns or ammunition for handguns, and it would overrule DC's decision to require residents to register all firearms. I guess government overreach is okay in certain circumstances if you're a Republican. I don't think that it is unreasonable for a city to require it's citizens to register their firearms, especially a city that has the highest per-carpita murder rate. They even mention that DC has the highest per-capita murder rate in the bill and they attempt to use that to justify looser gun restrictions for DC! Can you believe it?! HR 1181 requires anybody who is not allowed to own a firearm be included on the instant criminal background check system and that criminal background checks would be required for all firearm sales. Really, do I have to say it? I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that we have a database listing all those who aren't allowed to have firearms (kind of like a no-fly list for guns) or that we have to make sure somebody is allowed to actually buy a gun before selling it to them, especially when we can do so instantly. This does not infringe on any law-abiding citizen's right to own a firearm. It's a commonsense approach to keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and terrorists.
It's been six months since the tragic killings in Tuscon, Arizona and 6 years since the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act or "Brady Bill" has expired and we still don't have any new firearm laws or many continuations of Brady Bill provisions. Guns should not be "off-the-table" on the floors of the House and Senate as they appear to be currently. I'm sure you've heard the adage "guns don't kill people, people kill people" but why are some standing against legislation that would keep guns out of the hands of those particular "people" the adage refers to?
Thursday, June 2, 2011
The Alienable Right Part I: Medicaid
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." You should recognize that line, it's the one famously penned by Thomas Jefferson and is found in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. One could argue that a lot of Rights listed as guaranteed by our Founding Fathers still have not come to fruition, but one that I feel has gone most glaringly unfulfilled is the Right to Life. That's right, if you do not have the means to obtain medical care in this country it's your problem, tough luck, don't expect the government to help you, start digging your grave. Well that's the views of some in this country anyway. The current philosophy of healthcare in America is that it is a privilege, not a right.
I've worked in the medical field my entire career and went into medicine because I felt that it was a calling for me to play at least a small part in improving the quality of life for others. Even though I've transitioned from the clinical environment to the corporate one my goal has always been to contribute to helping others and my conviction is that everybody has a right to receive care regardless of their station in life. Unfortunately there are some in this country who do not share my views, in fact there are enough people in this country who view healthcare as a privilege that even in 2011 the United States remains the only large western nation without universal healthcare. I suppose something that's good enough for the rest of the developed world isn't quite good enough for us Americans. I could write an entire book about the attack on healthcare in this country, but I'm going to break-up this broad topic into multiple parts with this first part covering the much attacked and much misunderstood program called Medicaid.
Recent events in the US House, Florida, and New Jersey have motivated me to finally write a blog discussing Medicaid. Earlier this year the Florida Senate proposed cutting Medicaid by more than $1 billion and Gov. Christie of New Jersey is lowering the maximum qualifying income level of Medicaid recipients from from the current $24,645 to the ludicrously low $5,317. Of course who can forget the House GOP budget proposal that would cut federal Medicaid contributions to states. I think all of this begs the question, what's so bad about Medicaid? First let us get a better understanding of what Medicaid is and who it helps.
Medicaid is a healthcare program offered cooperatively by the federal and state governments to the disabled, children of low-income families, and older Americans requiring nursing home care (along with a few other categories). The predominant misconception about Medicaid is that it is for the poor, critics infer that the "poor" are freeloaders who are scamming the system. Having a low income alone does not qualify a person for Medicaid, it is a combination of low income paired with falling into certain eligibility groups such as those listed above.
According to the Social Security Administration (SSA) children of low-income families make up 53% of all Medicaid recipients. That's worth repeating, children make up 53% of all Medicaid recipients, just think about that the next time you hear someone decrying Medicaid and championing huge cuts to it. The disabled make up 16% of Medicaid recipients, these are people who may not be able to work or who do not have the capacity (mental or physical) to live on their own and require nursing home care or live in group homes. So more than two-thirds of Medicaid recipients are children and the disabled. The SSA goes on to say that 41% of Medicaid funds went to nursing home care in 2008.
One of the primary arguments against Medicaid is that people scam the system, but it is quite difficult to scam Medicaid as there isn't any financial benefit to do so, you do not receive any type of direct payment from the Medicaid program, any payments from the program are made directly to the medical provider. Let us remember that one of the requirements to be eligible for Medicaid is low-income (again, not the sole requirement) and you have to prove your income level to the government thus demonstrating that you cannot afford private insurance. So it's not folks who just don't want to purchase health insurance, those are primarily recent college grads, it's those who cannot afford insurance for their children or because they're disabled and cannot work to earn enough for private insurance. Another argument for cutting Medicaid is cost but the problem is that there really isn't much to cut. I'm sure that there is some level of waste in the program as there is in most programs, but I would venture to guess that waste is minimal and that most dollars are going directly to care. What is really driving up the cost of Medicaid are healthcare costs that are driven up by private insurance, that is the source of the problem and cutting Medicaid funding to cash-strapped states will not help the bottom line and in fact would probably cost the government more money. Again 41% of Medicaid funds go to nursing home care, how much more would it cost the government when patients can no longer stay in nursing homes after Medicaid is cut and have to live out the rest of their lives in a hospital instead? Or how about the children who make up 53% of Medicaid recipients, if they get cut how much more will it cost the government when they no longer have access to preventative care and make a trip to the ER each time they get sick and stick the taxpayers with the bill?
So if Medicaid actually goes to people who truly need it and if you can't really scam Medicaid and it would probably cost the government more in healthcare dollars to cut Medicaid then why propose cutting it? Because the recipients of Medicaid are easy targets. As we've seen two-thirds of Medicaid recipients are children and the disabled, throw in the aged in nursing homes (another 8%) and you have a group of people who can't vote, people who essentially don't have a voice. An America where we throw our children, disabled, and elderly under the bus in an effort to save (not really) the government a few bucks is not the America our founding fathers envisioned. They were serious about that right-to-life thing and private insurance has been very successful in convincing us that Medicaid, and more broadly universal healthcare, is something we don't want. It's time for us to pull our head out of the sand, do some reflection about or morals and priorities and finally stand up and speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. We must defend Medicaid.
For more information on Medicaid check out the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) website.
I've worked in the medical field my entire career and went into medicine because I felt that it was a calling for me to play at least a small part in improving the quality of life for others. Even though I've transitioned from the clinical environment to the corporate one my goal has always been to contribute to helping others and my conviction is that everybody has a right to receive care regardless of their station in life. Unfortunately there are some in this country who do not share my views, in fact there are enough people in this country who view healthcare as a privilege that even in 2011 the United States remains the only large western nation without universal healthcare. I suppose something that's good enough for the rest of the developed world isn't quite good enough for us Americans. I could write an entire book about the attack on healthcare in this country, but I'm going to break-up this broad topic into multiple parts with this first part covering the much attacked and much misunderstood program called Medicaid.
Recent events in the US House, Florida, and New Jersey have motivated me to finally write a blog discussing Medicaid. Earlier this year the Florida Senate proposed cutting Medicaid by more than $1 billion and Gov. Christie of New Jersey is lowering the maximum qualifying income level of Medicaid recipients from from the current $24,645 to the ludicrously low $5,317. Of course who can forget the House GOP budget proposal that would cut federal Medicaid contributions to states. I think all of this begs the question, what's so bad about Medicaid? First let us get a better understanding of what Medicaid is and who it helps.
Medicaid is a healthcare program offered cooperatively by the federal and state governments to the disabled, children of low-income families, and older Americans requiring nursing home care (along with a few other categories). The predominant misconception about Medicaid is that it is for the poor, critics infer that the "poor" are freeloaders who are scamming the system. Having a low income alone does not qualify a person for Medicaid, it is a combination of low income paired with falling into certain eligibility groups such as those listed above.
According to the Social Security Administration (SSA) children of low-income families make up 53% of all Medicaid recipients. That's worth repeating, children make up 53% of all Medicaid recipients, just think about that the next time you hear someone decrying Medicaid and championing huge cuts to it. The disabled make up 16% of Medicaid recipients, these are people who may not be able to work or who do not have the capacity (mental or physical) to live on their own and require nursing home care or live in group homes. So more than two-thirds of Medicaid recipients are children and the disabled. The SSA goes on to say that 41% of Medicaid funds went to nursing home care in 2008.
One of the primary arguments against Medicaid is that people scam the system, but it is quite difficult to scam Medicaid as there isn't any financial benefit to do so, you do not receive any type of direct payment from the Medicaid program, any payments from the program are made directly to the medical provider. Let us remember that one of the requirements to be eligible for Medicaid is low-income (again, not the sole requirement) and you have to prove your income level to the government thus demonstrating that you cannot afford private insurance. So it's not folks who just don't want to purchase health insurance, those are primarily recent college grads, it's those who cannot afford insurance for their children or because they're disabled and cannot work to earn enough for private insurance. Another argument for cutting Medicaid is cost but the problem is that there really isn't much to cut. I'm sure that there is some level of waste in the program as there is in most programs, but I would venture to guess that waste is minimal and that most dollars are going directly to care. What is really driving up the cost of Medicaid are healthcare costs that are driven up by private insurance, that is the source of the problem and cutting Medicaid funding to cash-strapped states will not help the bottom line and in fact would probably cost the government more money. Again 41% of Medicaid funds go to nursing home care, how much more would it cost the government when patients can no longer stay in nursing homes after Medicaid is cut and have to live out the rest of their lives in a hospital instead? Or how about the children who make up 53% of Medicaid recipients, if they get cut how much more will it cost the government when they no longer have access to preventative care and make a trip to the ER each time they get sick and stick the taxpayers with the bill?
So if Medicaid actually goes to people who truly need it and if you can't really scam Medicaid and it would probably cost the government more in healthcare dollars to cut Medicaid then why propose cutting it? Because the recipients of Medicaid are easy targets. As we've seen two-thirds of Medicaid recipients are children and the disabled, throw in the aged in nursing homes (another 8%) and you have a group of people who can't vote, people who essentially don't have a voice. An America where we throw our children, disabled, and elderly under the bus in an effort to save (not really) the government a few bucks is not the America our founding fathers envisioned. They were serious about that right-to-life thing and private insurance has been very successful in convincing us that Medicaid, and more broadly universal healthcare, is something we don't want. It's time for us to pull our head out of the sand, do some reflection about or morals and priorities and finally stand up and speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. We must defend Medicaid.
For more information on Medicaid check out the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) website.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Breakdown Of GOP Jobs Proposal
The House Republicans finally released their jobs proposal! [Trumpets playing in background; streamers, confetti, and balloons dropped from ceiling] It only took them 141 days to finally address their self-proclaimed #1 issue but I guess it takes time to draft such a complex plan that will benefit so many. What do you mean it's only 10 pages and most of it is pictures? Well I'm certain substance makes up for its brevity. Let us break-down their plan and see how it will drastically improve the prospects of those on the job market (you can read the full plan here). Excerpts from their plan are in italicized.
Introduction
Introduction
Free markets, free enterprise, innovation and entrepreneurship are the foundation for economic growth and job creation in America. For the past four years, Democrats in Washington have enacted policies that undermine these basic concepts which have historically placed America at the forefront of the global marketplace. As a result, most Americans know someone who has recently lost a job, and small businesses and entrepreneurs lack the confidence needed to invest in our economy. Not since the Great Depression has our nation’s unemployment rate been this high this long.
So they chose to begin with revisionist history, the tactic Republicans love most. You see they are implying that our current predicament was a result of the policies of the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress, even though our economic collapse and the majority of job losses occurred even before President Obama was sworn into office by policies enacted by Republicans. They also choose to ignore that de-regulation and lack of oversight was a primary factor leading to our current economic situation, Democrats are for regulation, I'm surprised they forgot that since they point it out so often. Maybe the below graph from the Bureau of Labor Statistics will make it more clear:
Enough is enough. More taxation, regulation, and litigation will not create more jobs.
The Clinton administration increased taxes, increased regulation and litigation and created over 22 million jobs. Bush reduced taxation, regulation, and litigation which led to the loss of 7.9 million jobs, but please continue.
Government takeovers of the economy have failed while the size and the scope of the federal government has exploded.
Chrysler just paid back their government loans with interest this past Tuesday, 6 years early. General Motors paid back its government loans with interest last April, 5 years ahead of schedule. The government stepping in to prop up this struggling industry saved millions of jobs, created new jobs (new auto-parts plants have announced plans for opening where I live in Kansas City for example) and is the sole reason America is still making cars today. Now that the auto loans have been paid back these actions ended up not costing the American taxpayers a dime. TARP if you recall is that nasty little four-letter word also known as the "Wall Street bailout", the original line of credit extended was $700 billion but as of this past fall estimates that put that number closer to $25 billion and it's dropping each month, the expectation is that the government will actually make a profit on this venture just as it did with the auto industry bailout. I guess the GOP's definition of failure is different from mine.
Empower Small Business Owners and Reduce Regulatory Burdens
Job creators are being bogged down by burdensome regulations from Washington that prevent job creation and hinder economic growth. These regulations are particularly damaging for the real job creators in the country: small business owners.
Ah yes that pesky regulation. Thank goodness Republicans are for stripping regulations, that worked so well when they let Wall Street self-regulate didn't it? Or how about when we allowed BP, Transocean, and Haliburton to do their own thing with the Deepwater Horizon Oil Rig? Oh wait, that's right they cut corners which resulted in a rig explosion killing 11 workers, harming the environment, hurting the local economy, and costing them billions more than they would have spent in regulatory compliance. De-regulating the meat industry would make beef cheaper right? Maybe in the near-term but it wouldn't take long until thousands developed an illness from tainted beef resulting in lawsuits which would result in payments by the manufacturer who will have to increase prices to cover the risk of not following regulation. But the GOP has an answer for this. Remember earlier in their proposal when they mentioned litigation? Their plan would not only remove regulations but prevent you from being able to sue those companies who injure you by cutting corners. Keeping those businesses profitable. But let us be clear, regulations do not harm small businesses and that's not who Republicans care about anyway, they want to remover regulations to help large businesses and corporations. Small businesses are exempt from a lot of regulations due to their size, and the Obama administration has created targeted tax cuts to small businesses to help offset the cost of any new regulations, regulations that ultimately are put in place to protect and benefit their employees and customers.
Background: The House has already acted on several regulations that hurt job creators both large and small including: The EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gases, the Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality proposal, and duplicative and burdensome pesticide regulations.
The above actions were all taken to benefit large businesses and corporations and in many ways harm small businesses. For example, opposing net neutrality would provide customers with faster routes to websites of large corporations while placing small business websites on a slower speed connection making it less likely for consumers to visit sites of smaller companies.
Fix the Tax Code to Help Job Creators
America’s tax code has grown too complicated and cumbersome, and it is fundamentally unfair. It is filled with loopholes and giveaways.
Here is one statement in their plan that I am in complete agreement with. Let's see what they have to say next:
Congress should eliminate the special interest tax breaks that litter the code and reduce the overall
tax rate to no more than 25% for businesses and individuals including small business owners.
And now they've just lost me again. We have a debt of over $14.2 trillion and according to the GOP solving that means decreasing revenue, I don't think the math works out on that one. They also want to decrease the top tax rate to a level not seen since the 1930s when we were economically worse off than at any other point in our history.
At a combined state and federal rate of just over 39%, the U.S. currently has the second-highest corporate tax rate among the developed nations of the world (those in the OECD).
I am willing to concede that may be an accurate statistic so I'll take them at their word. But the legal tax rate and the effective tax rate are two completely different things. GE and Exxon are just a few companies that fall under the 39% combined tax rate but they don't pay anything in taxes, actually they get money from the government placing their effective tax rates in the negative. That's got to be the lowest effective tax rate among the developed nations of the world. How many more companies will avoid taxes if the rate is reduced to 25%? Here's a look at how it really works and why I agreed with their statement of the tax code being unfair:
Increase Competitiveness for American Manufacturers
For more than three years free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea have sat idle, blocked by House Democrats’ political posturing. As President Obama said on January 27, 2010, “If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the opportunity to create jobs on our shores.”
Another instance where I agree with the GOP, these trade agreements are vital to expansion of American manufacturing, will help create jobs, and increase exports. But they're not telling the entire truth. The reason these deals have been held up in Congress is because the GOP is refusing to extend the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program that has been supported by both sides of the aisle for over 50 years. The TAA provides temporary unemployment and health insurance benefits to Americans whose jobs are shipped overseas as a result of these trade agreements. Democrats feel that helping Americans who lose their jobs because of the agreements is the right thing to do. Republicans on the other hand feel that money is more important than people and they don't feel that we can afford this program that has been a part of any trade agreement for 50 years even though there will be an increase in tax revenue from these deals will help offset the cost of TAA.
Maximize Domestic Energy Production to Ensure An Energy Policy for the Twenty-First Century
Since President Obama has taken office, American energy production has been halted and the average national price of gasoline has doubled. The rising cost of gasoline and dependence on foreign oil mean less money for families struggling to make ends meet and for business owner who are trying to get our economy moving again.
Did you catch that? It's all President Obama's fault that gas prices are high and I'm assuming we never had high fuel prices during the Bush administration. The Republican solution is to expand domestic exploration and domestic production. Never mind that we wouldn't see any benefit at the pump from these new sites for another 10 to 20 years at which time it would be really nice if we weren't so dependent on oil. The real problem with gas prices is that crude oil prices are determined by speculation. Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson surmised that speculation drove up the price of oil by as much as 40% during a recent Senate hearing. Currently there is a lawsuit pending against Parnon Energy and Arcadia Energy alleging that they manipulated oil prices in 2008 resulting in $50 million for their efforts. Until we address the real root of gas prices small businesses and individual Americans will continue to loose at the pump.
Pay Down America's Unsustainable Debt Burden and Start Living Within Our Means
President Obama and congressional Democrats have overseen the largest budget deficits in the history of the U.S. In the last two years, non-defense discretionary spending has increased by over 80%. They’ve maxed out our nation’s credit cards and are asking us to increase their credit limit so they can spend more. To create jobs and save our country from national bankruptcy, we must stop spending money we don’t have.
Notice they don't mention Defense spending in that statement, I guess we're going to continue the Bush policy of ignoring the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think that everybody is in agreement that we must address deficit spending, but each side of the isle has a different idea of how this should be done. Personally I am for reducing wastefull spending at this point, increasing taxes on the top 2% of Americans to the levels they were at during the Clinton administration, elimination of corporate tax loopholes, and elimination of tax subsidies to industries and businesses who do not require them. After we are on better economic footing and the unemployment rate is down to an acceptable range I believe that then, and only then, we can address further cuts to spending beyond waste. Republicans love to give the "kitchen table" analogy, you know the one where a struggling family is at the kitchen table to discuss their budget and reduce their household spending. It's a fair analogy but their explanation doesn't go far enough and their proposals don't match reality. Yes the family will reduce their household spending, but will do so smartly. They will keep their mortgage, car payments (because that's how they get to work to make money), paying student loans, and other necessary spending. They may cut things like cable, going to the movies, eating out, etc. The expectation should be no different for the government, spending will need to be cut but not for programs that are essential to the success of the American people. The Republicans wish to reduce revenue by slashing taxes to levels not seen sine the 1930s and here's where the analogy no longer works. Once the family determines their budget and identifies where they can reduce spending you won't hear one of the parent's say "now I'll quit my job to help us pay these bills." That's what the GOP is proposing, to address our debt and deficit we must reduce our revenue. The math just doesn't work.
********
So there you have it, the House GOP's plan for putting Americans back to work. It only took them 141 days to come up with a plan that contains less words than my review of their plan, I'm sure it will only take a few hundred more days to enact any of their proposed solutions. In the meantime the Obama administration and legislation enacted by Democrats will continue to create 200,000+ private sector jobs each month.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Obama Position On Israel Is Status Quo
This past Thursday President Obama gave a speech laying out his policy on the Middle East. The President covered a wide range of issues in this region to include the so-called "Arab Spring" uprisings, but some conservatives have focused all of their attention on one sentence; "the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."
GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney was quoted as saying “President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus.” Mr. Romney is joined by candidates Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum in disapproval of creating a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders with land swaps. “This is an outrage to peace, sovereignty of Israel, and a stable Middle East" according to Mike Huckabee.
But is their outrage justified or even rooted in historical facts? Has Obama taken US policy towards Israel and Palestine in a radical new direction? Have we abandoned Israel? No. President Obama's position is consistent with what US policy has been for the greater part of the past 44 years and more specifically he is continuing the policies started by President Clinton and George W. Bush.
William J. Clinton
The Clinton administration worked very hard to reach an agreement between Israel and Palestine through the Oslo Accords which laid out a phased plan to draw boundaries that would lead to a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines. The Oslo Accords were followed-up by other efforts such as The Hebron Protocol, The Wye River Memorandum, and The Camp David 2000 Summit.
The "Clinton Parameters" laid out a land swap that would return Palestine to 97% of the land boarders as they were in 1967. This is the same land swap that was mentioned in President Obama's speech.
George W. Bush
On June, 25th 2002 President Bush gave a speech laying out his roadmap for a resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict; a roadmap that would lead to the creation of a Palestinian state. In this speech he notes the need to create borders in accordance to those outlined by the UN Security council in 1967.
In a 2004 letter written to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon President Bush requested that "as part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338." UNSC Resolution 242 drafted in 1967 demanded that Israel withdraw from all territories it occupied as a result of the 6 Day War. UNSC Resolution 338 drafted in 1973 condemned Israel for violating the sovereignty of Lebanon and called upon all parties involved to cease military action.
With the exception of the Reagan administration US policy towards this region has been for Israel to withdraw it's troops from territory it has gained from the 6 Day War of 1967. There can be no solution to this conflict without creation of a Palestinian state, as long as the Palestinian’s feel they are being occupied there will be continued violence towards Israel. But both sides must give ground to achieve peace, neither side will get everything it wants. It all comes down to compromise.
I do not fault conservatives who feel that Israel is justified in its occupation of Palestinian territory and I do not fault anyone for rejecting the notion that Israel withdraw to its 1967 borders or that Palestine become a sovereign state. I disagree with them, but I respect their position. Where I do find fault is with those conservatives who make up their own facts, who are making it look as if President Obama is turning his back on Israel and bucking years of US policy. On Friday Mr. Santorum wrote a piece for The National Review criticizing President Obama for his position, but he chose to ignore that Mr. Bush and Mr. Clinton held the same views and also "prejudged" talks on the 1967 borders. I confronted Mr. Santorum on this issue on Twitter presenting him with copies of speeches and documents from previous administrations who held the same position as the President but Mr. Santorum (or whomever runs his Twitter account) deleted my replies to his tweet. You will only find supportive tweets on his account, I guess he didn't want his followers to know the truth.
Obama's position on Israel isn't radical, it's the status quo. Some conservatives are just choosing their own set of facts.
GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney was quoted as saying “President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus.” Mr. Romney is joined by candidates Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum in disapproval of creating a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders with land swaps. “This is an outrage to peace, sovereignty of Israel, and a stable Middle East" according to Mike Huckabee.
But is their outrage justified or even rooted in historical facts? Has Obama taken US policy towards Israel and Palestine in a radical new direction? Have we abandoned Israel? No. President Obama's position is consistent with what US policy has been for the greater part of the past 44 years and more specifically he is continuing the policies started by President Clinton and George W. Bush.
William J. Clinton
The Clinton administration worked very hard to reach an agreement between Israel and Palestine through the Oslo Accords which laid out a phased plan to draw boundaries that would lead to a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines. The Oslo Accords were followed-up by other efforts such as The Hebron Protocol, The Wye River Memorandum, and The Camp David 2000 Summit.
The "Clinton Parameters" laid out a land swap that would return Palestine to 97% of the land boarders as they were in 1967. This is the same land swap that was mentioned in President Obama's speech.
George W. Bush
On June, 25th 2002 President Bush gave a speech laying out his roadmap for a resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict; a roadmap that would lead to the creation of a Palestinian state. In this speech he notes the need to create borders in accordance to those outlined by the UN Security council in 1967.
In a 2004 letter written to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon President Bush requested that "as part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338." UNSC Resolution 242 drafted in 1967 demanded that Israel withdraw from all territories it occupied as a result of the 6 Day War. UNSC Resolution 338 drafted in 1973 condemned Israel for violating the sovereignty of Lebanon and called upon all parties involved to cease military action.
With the exception of the Reagan administration US policy towards this region has been for Israel to withdraw it's troops from territory it has gained from the 6 Day War of 1967. There can be no solution to this conflict without creation of a Palestinian state, as long as the Palestinian’s feel they are being occupied there will be continued violence towards Israel. But both sides must give ground to achieve peace, neither side will get everything it wants. It all comes down to compromise.
I do not fault conservatives who feel that Israel is justified in its occupation of Palestinian territory and I do not fault anyone for rejecting the notion that Israel withdraw to its 1967 borders or that Palestine become a sovereign state. I disagree with them, but I respect their position. Where I do find fault is with those conservatives who make up their own facts, who are making it look as if President Obama is turning his back on Israel and bucking years of US policy. On Friday Mr. Santorum wrote a piece for The National Review criticizing President Obama for his position, but he chose to ignore that Mr. Bush and Mr. Clinton held the same views and also "prejudged" talks on the 1967 borders. I confronted Mr. Santorum on this issue on Twitter presenting him with copies of speeches and documents from previous administrations who held the same position as the President but Mr. Santorum (or whomever runs his Twitter account) deleted my replies to his tweet. You will only find supportive tweets on his account, I guess he didn't want his followers to know the truth.
Obama's position on Israel isn't radical, it's the status quo. Some conservatives are just choosing their own set of facts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)