There's a movement afoot in America against voters, liberal-leaning voters that is, and it's being led by Republicans. Recently there have been a swath of voting an voter registration laws proposed and/or passed by states all over the country including (but not limited to):
Florida
The Republican led legislature in Florida has proposed to cut the time allotted for early voting in half , from 14 days to 7. They are doing away with the ability for a voter to change their address at the polling place unless it's within the same county, making it harder for college students changing from their parent's address to their school address. If a 3rd party group wants to conduct a voter registration drive they must have all registrations delivered to the Division of Elections (or local supervisor) within 48 hours of the time the registration was completed or face fines for EACH registration form that is turned in late. Prisoners must now wait 5 years (for non-violent crimes) or 7 years (violent crimes) after being released before being able to exercise their right to vote and can only do so after being approved by a clemency board.
Texas
Texas has recently passed legislation requiring a photo ID to be presented to vote unless you were born before 1931 or if you have a concealed handgun license, seriously, but college IDs don't count as is the case for many states proposing voter ID requirements. You aren't even allowed to present an expired ID even though it would contain your name and picture.
Kansas
Last week Governor Brownback signed a new voter ID law for this state. This plan was drafted by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach and would require proof of citizenship, US citizenship not just Kansas residence (think birth certificate), for new voters beginning in 2013. If the name Kris Kobach is familiar it is because he played a significant role in drafting the Arizona immigration law that required American citizens who didn't look American (meaning that they weren't white) to produce documentation on-demand by law enforcement that they were US citizens.
By my last count there are approximately 23 states currently pursuing new voting laws aimed at "reducing fraud." All of these are being pushed by Republicans. This fraud epidemic of course does not exist, and the types of fraud that do exist (mailing false information about election dates an polling locations, intimidation at polling sites, etc) won't be solved by instituting narrow voter ID laws nor by placing tougher restrictions on voter registration. According to the Brenner Center for Justice the rate of ineligible persons attempting to vote in Ohio for 2002 and 2004 was only 0.00004%, this statistic doesn't break out the number of those who actually intended to vote knowing they weren't eligible, if this occurred at all. I've scoured the internet in a search for voter fraud statistics and can't find any. Why? Because there isn't a significant voter fraud problem.
You may be asking yourself why there is a push for stricter voting laws if there isn't a voter fraud problem, it's because the laws being proposed/passed are aimed groups that overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. The Brenner brief mentioned above (please note that they begin one of their paragraphs the exact same way I began this post, I swear I penned those first few words prior to reading their brief, so please no plagiarism lawsuit!) as well as numerous other studies on this topic assert that voter ID laws prevent millions of otherwise eligible voters from being able to cast their vote and also point out that on average 10% eligible voters don't posses the documents required to vote. The laws also place an unfair burden on the elderly, minorities, the poor, the disabled, and college students, groups that largely vote for Democrats. In Florida (as well as other states) new voters and those who participate in early voting are primarily Democrats, hence their new proposed law to curb these activities.
Make no mistake, Republican lawmakers are using narrow voting laws and gerrymandering redistricting methods to their political advantage. And let us not forget the assault on unions who are the primary "big money" contributors for Democrats. The Republicans are desperate, voters in many Republican controlled states are extremely upset with the agendas they have pushed (note the recall efforts in Wisconsin) and they have constantly taken positions opposite of what their constituents want. Combine that with an incumbent President who is a very strong campaigner sitting on a stockpile of political contributions (and won't have to spend any for a primary run) and you can see why. I'm confident that many of these laws will be found unconstitutional as they will be too narrowly written but I urge you to check with you local election board prior to the 2012 elections to ensure that you are properly registered and so you'll know what appropriate documentation with you before get the polls. There's a movement to usurp the vote in 2012 and we must stay informed to ensure that our voices will be heard.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
President Obama's Long-Form Birth Certificate Released
The President has bowed to public pressure (minority of the public) today and released his long-form birth certificate. I'm assuming this was done via a Freedom of Information Act request due to how Hawaiian law currently stands regarding this type of form.
Will this finally shut the racists up on this issue? Probably not.
Will this finally shut the racists up on this issue? Probably not.
How The Agendas Compare To Public Opinion
I thought I would go for an easier post for today and take a look at some of the recent polling about issues that have currently been at the forefront of political debate in Washington and have garnered significant media coverage. I had stated in my introductory post that I had wished to demonstrate that the liberal agenda isn't that radical of a position and that in reality it aligns with the values of the majority of Americans. I had written then, and still believe now, that it is the Republican party that is shifting the conversation to a more radical position and more importantly is governing in opposition to the wishes of the majority of Americans.
Below is a look at some results of a recent Washington Post/ABC News Poll (April 14-17, 2011) and an NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey (February 2011).
Support for raising taxes on American households making more than $250,000:
Favor Oppose
72% 27%
The Republicans had pushed for, and received, a 2 year extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans even while we were faced with a "budget crisis" (their term). Under the Ryan proposal the GOP wishes to reduce the top tax bracket from 35% to 25%, the lowest rates since 1931. They want this even though 72% of Americans feel that revenue added by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for households making over $250,000 would help with the budget crisis. The "liberal agenda" is in-line with the majority of Americans on this issue.
Support for ending tax subsidies for Big Oil:
Totally/Mostly Totally/Mostly
Acceptable Unacceptable
74% 22%
Big Oil companies are looking to make profits to the tune of billions of dollars in just the 1st Quarter of 2011 alone and yet the GOP has been unwilling up to this point to put the billions of dollars in tax subsidies these companies enjoy on the chopping block. There is absolutely no need for companies that make more in profits than any other industry in the world to receive assistance from the US taxpayer and yet even though 74% of Americans think it is wise to do away with these subsidies and other tax loopholes the Republicans have think otherwise. The "liberal agenda" is in-line with the majority of Americans on this issue.
GOP's plan for cutting spending on Medicaid:
Support Oppose
30% 69%
Medicaid is a program that provides medical coverage to children of low-income families, the physically and mentally disabled, seniors who require nursing home care, and other individuals who do not have the ability to work and/or means to obtain their own health coverage. Currently this is a shared responsibility of the federal and state governments with guidelines coming from the federal government. The GOP's proposal is to provide these funds as lump sum payments to the states to determine on their own how to spend as well as cut federal contributions over time, shifting the burden to states who are already stretched thin. The Republicans wish to take healthcare funds from people who CANNOT work to pay for their own coverage and who have no voice in Washington. Even though 69% of Americans disagree, the GOP wants to radically alter this program. The "liberal agenda" is in-line with the majority of Americans on this issue.
GOP's plan for cutting spending on Medicare:
Support Oppose
21% 78%
GOP's plan to alter the Medicare program:
Support Oppose
34% 65%
Also on the chopping block is Medicare as we know it, I have previously written a post about this issue and feel no need to discuss the specifics here. Basically the GOP plan is to shift the cost of Medicare to the beneficiaries without addressing the issue of raising medical costs. As you can see above the majority of Americans don't want to see cuts to Medicare or to see the entitlement program altered as proposed in the Ryan proposal. Even though the majority of Americans are against these changes the House Republicans are pushing this plan forward anyway. The "liberal agenda" is in-line with the majority of Americans on this issue.
I will admit that I have always admired how the Republicans are able to frame the debate and set the tone for elections in recent years. They are very organized when it comes to messaging and taking a position that can appeal to voters on the surface. Take the most recent midterm elections for example, they campaigned on what was close to voter's hearts....jobs. Jobs was a no-brainer and something everyone could get behind, especially the unemployed. But my admiration stops when they start governing because while their rhetoric speaks to a broad audience they only represent corporate interests and the wealthiest of Americans once they take office. As the old adage goes "actions speak louder than words," and as you can tell from the poll figures their policies are not in-line with what Americans are looking for, their agenda is aimed to keep subsidies for Big Oil, shift Medicare dollars (as well as retirement dollars in the form of out-of-pocket expenses) to private insurance, shift the tax burden to the poor, elderly, and children, and shift care of the disabled to the states. They do not represent the average blue-collar American, liberals do and always have. The liberal agenda is to provide assistance to those who have no voice and who do not have the ability to care for themselves. Liberals don't think that taxpayer's hard earned dollars should go to corporations that make billions in profits and don't need assistance to remain profitable. Liberals don't think that the wealthiest of Americans should pay the least share of taxes. And liberals don't think that the elderly should be thrown into a healthcare market that will view them as "high risk" and charge high premiums. And neither do the American people apparently. Many who identify themselves as conservative only do so because their position on a few key social issues align with the Republicans ignoring the fact that on pretty much every non-social issue they are more aligned with Democrats and that the GOP does not represent their interests once in office. Today's Republican party is a far cry from that of Lincoln, they have moved more towards the extreme right while liberals have moved more towards the center.
Come 2012 all I ask is that we evaluate our desires based on what polls demonstrate above and compare those desires to what the Republicans have actually done with those issues. Maybe a few elections decided by voters going to the polls with that mindset will bring today's GOP closer to center and then maybe America will actually have a real choice.
Below is a look at some results of a recent Washington Post/ABC News Poll (April 14-17, 2011) and an NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey (February 2011).
Support for raising taxes on American households making more than $250,000:
Favor Oppose
72% 27%
The Republicans had pushed for, and received, a 2 year extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans even while we were faced with a "budget crisis" (their term). Under the Ryan proposal the GOP wishes to reduce the top tax bracket from 35% to 25%, the lowest rates since 1931. They want this even though 72% of Americans feel that revenue added by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for households making over $250,000 would help with the budget crisis. The "liberal agenda" is in-line with the majority of Americans on this issue.
Support for ending tax subsidies for Big Oil:
Totally/Mostly Totally/Mostly
Acceptable Unacceptable
74% 22%
Big Oil companies are looking to make profits to the tune of billions of dollars in just the 1st Quarter of 2011 alone and yet the GOP has been unwilling up to this point to put the billions of dollars in tax subsidies these companies enjoy on the chopping block. There is absolutely no need for companies that make more in profits than any other industry in the world to receive assistance from the US taxpayer and yet even though 74% of Americans think it is wise to do away with these subsidies and other tax loopholes the Republicans have think otherwise. The "liberal agenda" is in-line with the majority of Americans on this issue.
GOP's plan for cutting spending on Medicaid:
Support Oppose
30% 69%
Medicaid is a program that provides medical coverage to children of low-income families, the physically and mentally disabled, seniors who require nursing home care, and other individuals who do not have the ability to work and/or means to obtain their own health coverage. Currently this is a shared responsibility of the federal and state governments with guidelines coming from the federal government. The GOP's proposal is to provide these funds as lump sum payments to the states to determine on their own how to spend as well as cut federal contributions over time, shifting the burden to states who are already stretched thin. The Republicans wish to take healthcare funds from people who CANNOT work to pay for their own coverage and who have no voice in Washington. Even though 69% of Americans disagree, the GOP wants to radically alter this program. The "liberal agenda" is in-line with the majority of Americans on this issue.
GOP's plan for cutting spending on Medicare:
Support Oppose
21% 78%
GOP's plan to alter the Medicare program:
Support Oppose
34% 65%
Also on the chopping block is Medicare as we know it, I have previously written a post about this issue and feel no need to discuss the specifics here. Basically the GOP plan is to shift the cost of Medicare to the beneficiaries without addressing the issue of raising medical costs. As you can see above the majority of Americans don't want to see cuts to Medicare or to see the entitlement program altered as proposed in the Ryan proposal. Even though the majority of Americans are against these changes the House Republicans are pushing this plan forward anyway. The "liberal agenda" is in-line with the majority of Americans on this issue.
I will admit that I have always admired how the Republicans are able to frame the debate and set the tone for elections in recent years. They are very organized when it comes to messaging and taking a position that can appeal to voters on the surface. Take the most recent midterm elections for example, they campaigned on what was close to voter's hearts....jobs. Jobs was a no-brainer and something everyone could get behind, especially the unemployed. But my admiration stops when they start governing because while their rhetoric speaks to a broad audience they only represent corporate interests and the wealthiest of Americans once they take office. As the old adage goes "actions speak louder than words," and as you can tell from the poll figures their policies are not in-line with what Americans are looking for, their agenda is aimed to keep subsidies for Big Oil, shift Medicare dollars (as well as retirement dollars in the form of out-of-pocket expenses) to private insurance, shift the tax burden to the poor, elderly, and children, and shift care of the disabled to the states. They do not represent the average blue-collar American, liberals do and always have. The liberal agenda is to provide assistance to those who have no voice and who do not have the ability to care for themselves. Liberals don't think that taxpayer's hard earned dollars should go to corporations that make billions in profits and don't need assistance to remain profitable. Liberals don't think that the wealthiest of Americans should pay the least share of taxes. And liberals don't think that the elderly should be thrown into a healthcare market that will view them as "high risk" and charge high premiums. And neither do the American people apparently. Many who identify themselves as conservative only do so because their position on a few key social issues align with the Republicans ignoring the fact that on pretty much every non-social issue they are more aligned with Democrats and that the GOP does not represent their interests once in office. Today's Republican party is a far cry from that of Lincoln, they have moved more towards the extreme right while liberals have moved more towards the center.
Come 2012 all I ask is that we evaluate our desires based on what polls demonstrate above and compare those desires to what the Republicans have actually done with those issues. Maybe a few elections decided by voters going to the polls with that mindset will bring today's GOP closer to center and then maybe America will actually have a real choice.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
No Defense For Defense Of Marriage Act
There has been quite a bit of discussion over the past few months over the merits of defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) since Attorney General Eric Holder released a statement on February 23rd stating that the Justice Department will no longer defend the law. The law passed in 1996 was enacted to exempt states from recognizing gay marriages granted from other states under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution and essentially framed that the federal government viewed "marriage" as a legal union between one man and one woman.
In a one page document the US government was able to discriminate against its' citizens and claim that a state that legalized same-sex marriage was incorrect for doing so and that their actions would not be recognized by the rest of the nation. We cannot make the claim that we are the "land of the free and the home of the brave" while we continue to not recognize the rights of our fellow citizens who are just trying to live as fulfilling a life as the rest of us. It is not brave to deny others their freedom.
House Republicans instead of focusing on jobs as they had campaigned and rode into office on (still no legislation out of the House that has anything to do with jobs) have recently shifted their focus to defending DOMA separate of the Department of Justice. They are willing to defend this law to the tune of $520 per hour for an estimated total cost of $500,000. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi had to write a letter to Speaker Boehner to request an estimate of cost for this defense, as these estimates were not originally shared with the Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee. Even during a debate on the reduction of government spending House Republicans are willing to spend taxpayer funds unnecessarily to defend an unconstitutional law, a fight that would ultimately be lost.
In a CNN Opinion Research poll released on April 19th 51% of Americans feel that gay marriage should be recognized as valid. If you look at the break-down support among Dems is at 64% versus a 71% opposition by Republican respondents. As of yesterday media outlets reported that the private firm hired by House Republicans has decided to defend DOMA has decided to withdraw from the case. The dropping of the case by the defense team should be a signal to Speaker Boehner that he is fighting an uphill battle in his attempt to continue the government position of discrimination against homosexual citizens, especially considering that Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) was just repealed in December.
Homosexuals don't choose to be homosexual, the idea that sexual preference is a choice is ridiculous. If this was the case then 100% of individuals would have to choose their sexual orientation, I don't recall when I had to make the "choice" to be straight and that's because I didn't have to it was just born into me, the same is true for homosexuals and no "choice" has to be made. The sooner leaders in Washington and some of our fellow citizens realize this fact the sooner we can truly have equality in this country when it comes to sexual orientation. Laws like DOMA and DADT do nothing but further divide our nation and promote notions of inequality that just aren't true. So please Speaker Boehner let the courts handle DOMA and focus on what you said you would, jobs.
In a one page document the US government was able to discriminate against its' citizens and claim that a state that legalized same-sex marriage was incorrect for doing so and that their actions would not be recognized by the rest of the nation. We cannot make the claim that we are the "land of the free and the home of the brave" while we continue to not recognize the rights of our fellow citizens who are just trying to live as fulfilling a life as the rest of us. It is not brave to deny others their freedom.
House Republicans instead of focusing on jobs as they had campaigned and rode into office on (still no legislation out of the House that has anything to do with jobs) have recently shifted their focus to defending DOMA separate of the Department of Justice. They are willing to defend this law to the tune of $520 per hour for an estimated total cost of $500,000. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi had to write a letter to Speaker Boehner to request an estimate of cost for this defense, as these estimates were not originally shared with the Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee. Even during a debate on the reduction of government spending House Republicans are willing to spend taxpayer funds unnecessarily to defend an unconstitutional law, a fight that would ultimately be lost.
In a CNN Opinion Research poll released on April 19th 51% of Americans feel that gay marriage should be recognized as valid. If you look at the break-down support among Dems is at 64% versus a 71% opposition by Republican respondents. As of yesterday media outlets reported that the private firm hired by House Republicans has decided to defend DOMA has decided to withdraw from the case. The dropping of the case by the defense team should be a signal to Speaker Boehner that he is fighting an uphill battle in his attempt to continue the government position of discrimination against homosexual citizens, especially considering that Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) was just repealed in December.
Homosexuals don't choose to be homosexual, the idea that sexual preference is a choice is ridiculous. If this was the case then 100% of individuals would have to choose their sexual orientation, I don't recall when I had to make the "choice" to be straight and that's because I didn't have to it was just born into me, the same is true for homosexuals and no "choice" has to be made. The sooner leaders in Washington and some of our fellow citizens realize this fact the sooner we can truly have equality in this country when it comes to sexual orientation. Laws like DOMA and DADT do nothing but further divide our nation and promote notions of inequality that just aren't true. So please Speaker Boehner let the courts handle DOMA and focus on what you said you would, jobs.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
The Revenue Problem
According to House Speaker John Boehner and the Republicans in congress the US government has a spending problem but not a revenue problem. For FY 2011 congress reduced spending by approximately $79 billion compared to President Obama's proposal for that period and according to the Congressional Budget Office the President's budget proposal for FY 2012 will result in deficit spending of $1.4 trillion for 2011 and $1.2 trillion in 2012 (cutting over $1 trillion in spending over 10 years). The Republicans wish to cut these amounts of spending as laid out in the budget bill they passed last Friday which aims to cut spending by $6.2 trillion over the next decade. This bill also reduces the top corporate and personal tax rates to 25% down from the current level of 35%; they justify reducing the top tax rate to the lowest levels since 1931 by claiming the deficit problem resides solely with spending and that easing the burden on the so-called "job creators" will spur economic growth, increased government revenue, and a decreased unemployment rate. History shows a different story.
Let us take a look back at what the Clinton administration was able to accomplish with increasing taxes on upper-income taxpayers in combination with reductions in spending. The reason I chose the Clinton administration is because it was the most recent time that we have seen a balanced budget and the elimination of deficit spending that lasted for consecutive years, this will also dispel the Republicans' assertion that increasing taxes on the top income earners and corporations will create higher unemployment and stall the economic recovery.
Clinton came into office promising to eliminate deficit spending and reduce the debt, he raised the top income tax rate from 31% to 39.6% and established a corporate tax rate of 35% in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, his plan also reduced the tax burden on low-income families and small businesses. Please note that this Act was passed without a single Republican vote. President Clinton also enacted a payroll tax for Social Security that has led to the surplus we have to day that is invested in the Social Security Trust Fund (currently over $2.5 trillion). The unemployment rate was at 7.5% when Clinton took office and had fallen to just 4% at the end of his second term, even with raising taxes on the "job-creators" the Clinton administration managed to create 22.7 million jobs.
I'm going to try to make this as simple as possible, the Clinton administration raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans and corporations as well as reduced spending; it was these policies that led to President Clinton presiding over the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history which led to the creation of over 22 million jobs. President Bush reduced taxes and didn't address spending and led us to our current economic state resulting in the loss of $2.6 million jobs in 2008 alone.
Currently the wealthiest Americans are doing better today than they did prior to the recession, CEO pay is up 23% over last year with the average salary 343 times higher than the average worker (notice which party in that article wants to do away with the pay-disparity disclosure rule). Corporate profits rose 29% over last year setting the fastest pace of growth in six decades; 3rd quarter profits were the highest in American history. Even though the rich are doing well the unemployment is currently 8.8% (this figure has been declining due to job growth created by President Obama's spending policies) and the Republican party wants to reduce the burden of the wealthiest Americans at the expense of those who are struggling.
Nobody wants to pay more taxes and we all go out of our way to pay as little as the law will allow (just look at corporations who are able to avoid paying taxes at all) but as history has shown we do better economically when tax rates are higher and worse when those tax rates are reduced. Aside from lowering taxes now is not the time to haphazardly reduce spending, basic economics says and history demonstrates that the only way an economy can recover from a recession is through targeted government spending. Why government spending? Because in lean economic times the government is the only entity with the ability to spend and spending keeps the wheels turning and puts people to work. The most recent budget cut spending, this will do nothing but slow our economic recovery and keep the unemployment rate high, but as it has been the case this year the Republicans were able to move the debate to the extreme right and the Democrats felt they had to move farther to the right to garner public support. But they just ended up doing harm. Spending will have to be addressed to solve our budget issues for the long-term but that debate must wait until we emerge from our current economic circumstances. In the meantime we should focus on cutting waste and ineffective programs while continuing to invest in the programs that lead to a productive economy and increased workforce.
It is a mathematical impossibility to solve our budget and debt issue through cuts in spending alone, there just isn't enough that can be put on the table to make any real progress on this issue and the Republican plan just targets spending for programs they don't like shifting the burden to low-income families, children, and the elderly. We can only seriously address the deficit and debt by smart reductions in spending (small amounts now, more later) and increased revenue.
First we must repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans, but this alone will not help as the majority of the wealthiest salaries are in the form of dividends that are subject to the capital gains tax (not personal income tax) which is currently only 15%. We must also make an effort to collect the $330 billion in unpaid taxes, this amount is 90% more than what was cut in spending by the most recent FY 2011 budget bill. Once these policies take hold and we are on better economic footing we can more seriously address the issue of spending. But we must not fall back into the cycle of decreasing taxes once we achieve a government surplus, it's this mistake that has led us back into deficit spending and a struggling after each period of solid economic growth.
Until the Republicans can own up to the fact that we do have a revenue problem we will never be able to solve our current economic, deficit, and debt issues. They must get serious and the Democrats need to hold firm.
Let us take a look back at what the Clinton administration was able to accomplish with increasing taxes on upper-income taxpayers in combination with reductions in spending. The reason I chose the Clinton administration is because it was the most recent time that we have seen a balanced budget and the elimination of deficit spending that lasted for consecutive years, this will also dispel the Republicans' assertion that increasing taxes on the top income earners and corporations will create higher unemployment and stall the economic recovery.
Clinton came into office promising to eliminate deficit spending and reduce the debt, he raised the top income tax rate from 31% to 39.6% and established a corporate tax rate of 35% in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, his plan also reduced the tax burden on low-income families and small businesses. Please note that this Act was passed without a single Republican vote. President Clinton also enacted a payroll tax for Social Security that has led to the surplus we have to day that is invested in the Social Security Trust Fund (currently over $2.5 trillion). The unemployment rate was at 7.5% when Clinton took office and had fallen to just 4% at the end of his second term, even with raising taxes on the "job-creators" the Clinton administration managed to create 22.7 million jobs.
I'm going to try to make this as simple as possible, the Clinton administration raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans and corporations as well as reduced spending; it was these policies that led to President Clinton presiding over the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history which led to the creation of over 22 million jobs. President Bush reduced taxes and didn't address spending and led us to our current economic state resulting in the loss of $2.6 million jobs in 2008 alone.
Currently the wealthiest Americans are doing better today than they did prior to the recession, CEO pay is up 23% over last year with the average salary 343 times higher than the average worker (notice which party in that article wants to do away with the pay-disparity disclosure rule). Corporate profits rose 29% over last year setting the fastest pace of growth in six decades; 3rd quarter profits were the highest in American history. Even though the rich are doing well the unemployment is currently 8.8% (this figure has been declining due to job growth created by President Obama's spending policies) and the Republican party wants to reduce the burden of the wealthiest Americans at the expense of those who are struggling.
Nobody wants to pay more taxes and we all go out of our way to pay as little as the law will allow (just look at corporations who are able to avoid paying taxes at all) but as history has shown we do better economically when tax rates are higher and worse when those tax rates are reduced. Aside from lowering taxes now is not the time to haphazardly reduce spending, basic economics says and history demonstrates that the only way an economy can recover from a recession is through targeted government spending. Why government spending? Because in lean economic times the government is the only entity with the ability to spend and spending keeps the wheels turning and puts people to work. The most recent budget cut spending, this will do nothing but slow our economic recovery and keep the unemployment rate high, but as it has been the case this year the Republicans were able to move the debate to the extreme right and the Democrats felt they had to move farther to the right to garner public support. But they just ended up doing harm. Spending will have to be addressed to solve our budget issues for the long-term but that debate must wait until we emerge from our current economic circumstances. In the meantime we should focus on cutting waste and ineffective programs while continuing to invest in the programs that lead to a productive economy and increased workforce.
It is a mathematical impossibility to solve our budget and debt issue through cuts in spending alone, there just isn't enough that can be put on the table to make any real progress on this issue and the Republican plan just targets spending for programs they don't like shifting the burden to low-income families, children, and the elderly. We can only seriously address the deficit and debt by smart reductions in spending (small amounts now, more later) and increased revenue.
First we must repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans, but this alone will not help as the majority of the wealthiest salaries are in the form of dividends that are subject to the capital gains tax (not personal income tax) which is currently only 15%. We must also make an effort to collect the $330 billion in unpaid taxes, this amount is 90% more than what was cut in spending by the most recent FY 2011 budget bill. Once these policies take hold and we are on better economic footing we can more seriously address the issue of spending. But we must not fall back into the cycle of decreasing taxes once we achieve a government surplus, it's this mistake that has led us back into deficit spending and a struggling after each period of solid economic growth.
Until the Republicans can own up to the fact that we do have a revenue problem we will never be able to solve our current economic, deficit, and debt issues. They must get serious and the Democrats need to hold firm.
"Like" Me On Facebook
You can now find my fan page on Facebook by clicking the Facebook link on the left-hand side of this page. Oh, and this blog has now surpassed 100 views! Woo-hoo!
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
The BP Oil Spill One Year Later
Today marks the one year anniversary of the BP oil spill and I hate to say this but deepwater drilling is no safer now than it was then and the US government has already been handing out new permits. That's right we're giving companies permission to drill again even though we don't fully understand what led to the 2010 spill nor have implemented any new rules that makes drilling safer.
What We Know
As you recall on April 20th, 2010 the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded killing 11 rig workers and spilling an estimated 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. It took 85 days before this well could be capped and for oil to cease spilling into the ocean. This hurt many local Gulf residents who were unable to fish those waters, many of whom earn their entire year's salary from just one season. This also resulted in a decline of tourism to the Gulf region as many of the beach areas were contaminated with oil washed ashore from the rig.
On April 30th, 2010 President Obama placed a moratorium on offshore drilling projects until an evaluation could be made to determine what caused the Horizon rig to explode and to draft new safety regulations prior to issuing new offshore drilling permits. According to a report released by the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling there were many factors that led to the explosion of the Horizon rig to include defects in the blowout preventer, poor cementing method, and a general breakdown in safe drilling practices due to a rushed timeline.
What's Happening Now
Oil is still effecting the ecosystem with recent reports showing that as many as 406 whales and dolphins have washed ashore, many fish are developing bacterial infections and lesions both on their skin and organs. According to the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries the state shrimp supply was down 37% and oysters were down by 49%.
And while the Gulf region is still recovering the US Government has issued 11 new deepwater drilling permits in the past few weeks. The government is issuing new permits even though Det Norske Veritas (DNV) recently presented a report to the US Interior Department stating that the blowout preventers used on drilling rig to you know, prevent explosions, are flawed by design and shouldn't be relied upon to prevent blowouts. Bureau of Offshore Energy Management Director Michael Bromwich was recently interviewed on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show and was aware of the DNV report and even stated that he never thought blowout preventers worked and even though he can't explain why more rig workers working in US waters are injured or killed than those who work in European waters for the same drilling companies he thinks the new regulation that requires drillers to be able to contain a spill in 17 days (wow, only 17 days!) is good enough. Oh and as far as the 17 day containment method, its never been tested, the companies just have to say they can do it.
You Better Sit Down For This
BP has been spending money to help clean up the oil spill and was required by the US government to set aside $20 billion for a victim compensation fund. These expenditures have netted BP a loss of $4.8 billion for 2010 and they've decided to write off $9.9 billion in taxes due to their losses on their US tax return. So even though they rushed the drilling project that led to lax safety measures and resulted in a rig explosion that killed 11 people, ruined an ecosystem, and hurt the local economy they are essentially expecting US taxpayers to cover $9.9 billion of the bill. The victims will help compensate BP for its losses that resulted from the oil spill.
Where Are We Now?
Its been 365 days since the worst oil drilling disaster to happen off our shores and Congress still hasn't passed any laws that require stricter safety regulations for deepwater drilling, in fact many Republicans have submitted bills to help speed up the permit issuing process without addressing safety. Nothing about drilling in the Gulf today is any different than it was on April 20, 2010 but somehow we are issuing new permits and expecting different results. If a nut on an airplane tries, and fails, to light his shoe on fire then everyone in the country is required to remove their shoes for security screening prior to boarding an airplane indefinitely; but if 11 people are killed and a local economy is ruined because a few safety regulations need to be implemented our government takes no action....because a certain group feels that corporations are the victims.
What We Know
As you recall on April 20th, 2010 the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded killing 11 rig workers and spilling an estimated 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. It took 85 days before this well could be capped and for oil to cease spilling into the ocean. This hurt many local Gulf residents who were unable to fish those waters, many of whom earn their entire year's salary from just one season. This also resulted in a decline of tourism to the Gulf region as many of the beach areas were contaminated with oil washed ashore from the rig.
On April 30th, 2010 President Obama placed a moratorium on offshore drilling projects until an evaluation could be made to determine what caused the Horizon rig to explode and to draft new safety regulations prior to issuing new offshore drilling permits. According to a report released by the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling there were many factors that led to the explosion of the Horizon rig to include defects in the blowout preventer, poor cementing method, and a general breakdown in safe drilling practices due to a rushed timeline.
What's Happening Now
Oil is still effecting the ecosystem with recent reports showing that as many as 406 whales and dolphins have washed ashore, many fish are developing bacterial infections and lesions both on their skin and organs. According to the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries the state shrimp supply was down 37% and oysters were down by 49%.
And while the Gulf region is still recovering the US Government has issued 11 new deepwater drilling permits in the past few weeks. The government is issuing new permits even though Det Norske Veritas (DNV) recently presented a report to the US Interior Department stating that the blowout preventers used on drilling rig to you know, prevent explosions, are flawed by design and shouldn't be relied upon to prevent blowouts. Bureau of Offshore Energy Management Director Michael Bromwich was recently interviewed on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show and was aware of the DNV report and even stated that he never thought blowout preventers worked and even though he can't explain why more rig workers working in US waters are injured or killed than those who work in European waters for the same drilling companies he thinks the new regulation that requires drillers to be able to contain a spill in 17 days (wow, only 17 days!) is good enough. Oh and as far as the 17 day containment method, its never been tested, the companies just have to say they can do it.
You Better Sit Down For This
BP has been spending money to help clean up the oil spill and was required by the US government to set aside $20 billion for a victim compensation fund. These expenditures have netted BP a loss of $4.8 billion for 2010 and they've decided to write off $9.9 billion in taxes due to their losses on their US tax return. So even though they rushed the drilling project that led to lax safety measures and resulted in a rig explosion that killed 11 people, ruined an ecosystem, and hurt the local economy they are essentially expecting US taxpayers to cover $9.9 billion of the bill. The victims will help compensate BP for its losses that resulted from the oil spill.
Where Are We Now?
Its been 365 days since the worst oil drilling disaster to happen off our shores and Congress still hasn't passed any laws that require stricter safety regulations for deepwater drilling, in fact many Republicans have submitted bills to help speed up the permit issuing process without addressing safety. Nothing about drilling in the Gulf today is any different than it was on April 20, 2010 but somehow we are issuing new permits and expecting different results. If a nut on an airplane tries, and fails, to light his shoe on fire then everyone in the country is required to remove their shoes for security screening prior to boarding an airplane indefinitely; but if 11 people are killed and a local economy is ruined because a few safety regulations need to be implemented our government takes no action....because a certain group feels that corporations are the victims.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Are Birthers Racist? Yes.
Today I saw an article on CNN's website asking its readers if "Birthers" are racist, I thought this was the case the first time I had heard President (then Senator) Obama's citizenship called into question and it appears that the mainstream media has finally decided to stop shying away from this fact. This CNN question was in the wake of the new law passed by Arizona that would require presidential candidates to submit affidavits declaring their citizenship and sworn statements as to their residency for the past 14 years along with providing a copy of their birth certificate prior to having their name placed on the ballot. This measure passed the Arizona House by a vote of 40-16 and is awaiting Governor Jan Brewer's signature.
First let's get a better understanding of how Hawaiian law works in regards to birth certificates and how this relates to the question of President Obama's citizenship. Hawaii won't just release personal records, nor do many other states. I went to Hawaii's Department of Health website to see exactly what has to be done to obtain a copy of one's birth certificate, right on the front page is a link titled "Frequently Asked Questions About the Vital Records of President Barack Hussein Obama II." Wow, this whole birther idiocy is so prevalent that they actually had to put a link about this issue on the state's website! According to the website under HRS 338-18 the DOH is "prohibited from disclosing any vital statistics records or information contained in such records unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record." One of the exceptions to this rule is what they refer to as "index data" which includes name, sex, and type of event and the state has released this information about the President. The list of what constitutes a direct and tangible interest mentioned above can be found here.
According to Dr. Chiyome Fukino who is the former Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health the "Certificate of Live Birth" that the Obama administration (along with others) requested, received, and published is the "birth certificate" that anybody born in Hawaii would receive if they requested a copy of their birth certificate. According to Dr. Fukino it is against state law to release the "long form" certificate that is on file at the DOH, this is the form that the birthers want to see. This form contains information on the parents as well as the delivering physician's signature. Dr. Fukino has attested to the fact that President Obama's birth certificate is on file and valid. Even if President Obama went to the Hawaiian DOH in person and asked for a copy of his long form certificate, or signed a release for it to be published the state would not be able to do so. The best he would be able to do is veiw the certificate in the book it's contained in, that's it. Otherwise he just gets a certificate of live birth.
As stated earlier Mr. Obama's certificate of live birth has been published, numerous times from various parties actually. You can view a copy of it here. Oh and his birth announcement was published in two Hawaiian newspapers, go figure. Even with all of these FACTS and the visual evidence of the certificate of live birth the birthers still don't believe it. Why? Because they are racists.
The reason birthers refuse to believe these facts is because they are upset that there is a black family occupying the White House. Even though this year marks the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War and even this far removed from the passage of civil rights laws there are those that are so ignorant and filled with hate they will not ever get over the color of someone's skin. And the fact that there is a black man with a funny name who holds our nation's highest office just eats away at them. That's why we've never had an issue of a president's citizenship come into question before, because they fit the birther's version of what an American looks like. One 2008 presidential candidate WAS born outside of the United States though, John McCain. Senator McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, but I don't recall the birhers questioning his citizenship?
Does passage of this new Arizona law make the lawmakers that voted for it racists as well? Yes, remember these are the same folks that passed a law subjecting anybody who was not white to demonstrate their citizenship on-the-spot for nothing other than not looking American.
First let's get a better understanding of how Hawaiian law works in regards to birth certificates and how this relates to the question of President Obama's citizenship. Hawaii won't just release personal records, nor do many other states. I went to Hawaii's Department of Health website to see exactly what has to be done to obtain a copy of one's birth certificate, right on the front page is a link titled "Frequently Asked Questions About the Vital Records of President Barack Hussein Obama II." Wow, this whole birther idiocy is so prevalent that they actually had to put a link about this issue on the state's website! According to the website under HRS 338-18 the DOH is "prohibited from disclosing any vital statistics records or information contained in such records unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record." One of the exceptions to this rule is what they refer to as "index data" which includes name, sex, and type of event and the state has released this information about the President. The list of what constitutes a direct and tangible interest mentioned above can be found here.
According to Dr. Chiyome Fukino who is the former Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health the "Certificate of Live Birth" that the Obama administration (along with others) requested, received, and published is the "birth certificate" that anybody born in Hawaii would receive if they requested a copy of their birth certificate. According to Dr. Fukino it is against state law to release the "long form" certificate that is on file at the DOH, this is the form that the birthers want to see. This form contains information on the parents as well as the delivering physician's signature. Dr. Fukino has attested to the fact that President Obama's birth certificate is on file and valid. Even if President Obama went to the Hawaiian DOH in person and asked for a copy of his long form certificate, or signed a release for it to be published the state would not be able to do so. The best he would be able to do is veiw the certificate in the book it's contained in, that's it. Otherwise he just gets a certificate of live birth.
As stated earlier Mr. Obama's certificate of live birth has been published, numerous times from various parties actually. You can view a copy of it here. Oh and his birth announcement was published in two Hawaiian newspapers, go figure. Even with all of these FACTS and the visual evidence of the certificate of live birth the birthers still don't believe it. Why? Because they are racists.
The reason birthers refuse to believe these facts is because they are upset that there is a black family occupying the White House. Even though this year marks the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War and even this far removed from the passage of civil rights laws there are those that are so ignorant and filled with hate they will not ever get over the color of someone's skin. And the fact that there is a black man with a funny name who holds our nation's highest office just eats away at them. That's why we've never had an issue of a president's citizenship come into question before, because they fit the birther's version of what an American looks like. One 2008 presidential candidate WAS born outside of the United States though, John McCain. Senator McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, but I don't recall the birhers questioning his citizenship?
Does passage of this new Arizona law make the lawmakers that voted for it racists as well? Yes, remember these are the same folks that passed a law subjecting anybody who was not white to demonstrate their citizenship on-the-spot for nothing other than not looking American.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Got An Extra $300k?
Are you saving for your retirement? If you are that's great but I hate to tell you that it's not enough, seriously, well that is if Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin gets his way. I'm sure you've heard of his 2012 budget proposal titled "The Path to Prosperity" (read the full text here) and the item from that proposal that has garnered most attention is his re-imagining/privatization/elimination of Medicare.
Please note that all dollar amounts referenced below are in 2010 dollars
According to Mr. Ryan's plan instead of being eligible for Medicare at age 65 (starting in 2022) you will receive an $11,000 voucher to shop for your own private healthcare coverage. The $11,000 figure is the average expected voucher amount as laid out in the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of Mr. Ryan's plan. This voucher amount will vary based on age, health status, and income level. Now this voucher does not cover 100% of the cost of private insurance, in fact according to the CBO it would cost the enrollee considerably more the very year this new program would start compared to the current Medicare structure.
As the law stands now the average Medicare recipient would be responsible for 27% of their healthcare costs in 2022, but under Mr. Ryan's plan that share of cost by the enrollee raises to 68% according to the CBO. Assuming everything is equal (basing the full cost of coverage off the $11,000 voucher figure, not adjusting for inflation, etc) the current total value of a Medicare plan is $34,400 with the enrollee paying approximately $9,300 in annual out-of-pocket expenses (27%). In 2022 for the same plan the enrollee will need to cover $23,400 out-of-pocket annually.
Now back to my original question, are you saving for retirement? You are? That's great, but which retirement structure are you saving for? It makes a big difference, let's look at what you'll need to have set aside for your medical expenses in you retirement account. Let's assume that you'll retire at age 65 and live for another 20 years:
Current Law Mr. Ryan's Proposal
Medical Expenses $186,000 $468,000
(20 years)
Wow, that's a difference of $282,000! That's $282,000 more you have to start working on saving right now. I turn 30 next week and have a good paying job and contribute to my 401(k) and even though retirement is at least another 35 years away for me $282,000 is a daunting figure. Only those currently 55 and older are exempt from Mr. Ryan's proposal, so if you're 54 you have 10 years to save up for your increased out-of-pocket expenses. Usually when you're that close to retirement you would move a large portion of your retirement savings into conservative investments to keep it safe but you can't do that if you only have 10 years to make almost $300k. That's asking a lot of people to take a big risk; I know quite a few folks who had to put off retirement because they lost a chunk in 2008 because they didn't shift their money into more conservative investments. Imagine an entire generation loosing big because they had to scramble to save a fortune and couldn't go the safe route because this new healthcare structure was implemented too close to their retirement deadline.
Ultimately this plan hurts Americans and benefits private insurance, and that's how it's intended. I believe that this plan will NOT save the government any substantial amount of money, if it saves any at all. First of all Mr. Ryan's proposal doesn't address the meat of the issue, rising healthcare costs. Nowhere in "The Path to Prosperity" does he ever address how rising healthcare costs will be handled, I am left to speculate that the rise in cost will be burdened by the enrolee. And what if the retiree can't afford any of the plans offered? That's kind of why we have Medicare to begin with, insurance views the elderly as a financial risk, they will collect premiums for a very short period of time along with payouts during that same period of time that are much larger compared to a younger customer which is why premiums will be higher. Just because the retiree can't afford insurance doesn't mean they wont' need medical services. They'll still contract pneumonia, heart disease, fractures, strokes, etc. And who do you think will cover these costs when they are hospitalized with no insurance and no income other than Social Security? The taxpayer....and there goes your federal budget "savings."
This deal has nothing to do with the budget nor creating a better system for our retirees, it has everything to do with paying for his proposal to cut taxes for the richest Americans to levels not seen since 1931.
Please note that all dollar amounts referenced below are in 2010 dollars
According to Mr. Ryan's plan instead of being eligible for Medicare at age 65 (starting in 2022) you will receive an $11,000 voucher to shop for your own private healthcare coverage. The $11,000 figure is the average expected voucher amount as laid out in the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of Mr. Ryan's plan. This voucher amount will vary based on age, health status, and income level. Now this voucher does not cover 100% of the cost of private insurance, in fact according to the CBO it would cost the enrollee considerably more the very year this new program would start compared to the current Medicare structure.
As the law stands now the average Medicare recipient would be responsible for 27% of their healthcare costs in 2022, but under Mr. Ryan's plan that share of cost by the enrollee raises to 68% according to the CBO. Assuming everything is equal (basing the full cost of coverage off the $11,000 voucher figure, not adjusting for inflation, etc) the current total value of a Medicare plan is $34,400 with the enrollee paying approximately $9,300 in annual out-of-pocket expenses (27%). In 2022 for the same plan the enrollee will need to cover $23,400 out-of-pocket annually.
Now back to my original question, are you saving for retirement? You are? That's great, but which retirement structure are you saving for? It makes a big difference, let's look at what you'll need to have set aside for your medical expenses in you retirement account. Let's assume that you'll retire at age 65 and live for another 20 years:
Current Law Mr. Ryan's Proposal
Medical Expenses $186,000 $468,000
(20 years)
Wow, that's a difference of $282,000! That's $282,000 more you have to start working on saving right now. I turn 30 next week and have a good paying job and contribute to my 401(k) and even though retirement is at least another 35 years away for me $282,000 is a daunting figure. Only those currently 55 and older are exempt from Mr. Ryan's proposal, so if you're 54 you have 10 years to save up for your increased out-of-pocket expenses. Usually when you're that close to retirement you would move a large portion of your retirement savings into conservative investments to keep it safe but you can't do that if you only have 10 years to make almost $300k. That's asking a lot of people to take a big risk; I know quite a few folks who had to put off retirement because they lost a chunk in 2008 because they didn't shift their money into more conservative investments. Imagine an entire generation loosing big because they had to scramble to save a fortune and couldn't go the safe route because this new healthcare structure was implemented too close to their retirement deadline.
Ultimately this plan hurts Americans and benefits private insurance, and that's how it's intended. I believe that this plan will NOT save the government any substantial amount of money, if it saves any at all. First of all Mr. Ryan's proposal doesn't address the meat of the issue, rising healthcare costs. Nowhere in "The Path to Prosperity" does he ever address how rising healthcare costs will be handled, I am left to speculate that the rise in cost will be burdened by the enrolee. And what if the retiree can't afford any of the plans offered? That's kind of why we have Medicare to begin with, insurance views the elderly as a financial risk, they will collect premiums for a very short period of time along with payouts during that same period of time that are much larger compared to a younger customer which is why premiums will be higher. Just because the retiree can't afford insurance doesn't mean they wont' need medical services. They'll still contract pneumonia, heart disease, fractures, strokes, etc. And who do you think will cover these costs when they are hospitalized with no insurance and no income other than Social Security? The taxpayer....and there goes your federal budget "savings."
This deal has nothing to do with the budget nor creating a better system for our retirees, it has everything to do with paying for his proposal to cut taxes for the richest Americans to levels not seen since 1931.
The Upcoming Debt Ceiling Debate
The debt ceiling, I'm sure you've become familiar with this term the past few weeks and days, sounds pretty ominous doesn't it? But exactly what is a debt ceiling and what does raising or not raising it mean?
The debt ceiling is the amount of debt the federal government can rack-up (note that does not necessarily mean the government has to borrow that much). The first debt ceiling was set in 1917 at $11.5 billion and has been increased 74 times since 1962 to the current level of $14.294 trillion, which was set in 2010. The current debt ceiling is estimated to be reached on May 16, 2011.
You may notice that in the above paragraph I mention that it has been raised 74 times in the past 48 years (and nearly 100 times since 1917) with 10 of those increases occurring since 2001. Now you may be asking yourself "why am I hearing so much about this now when I never heard anything about it the previous 74 times?" That's a great question, it's because the Republicans want something. Their plan is to hold the world economy hostage with the threat of not raising the debt ceiling in hopes that the Democratic majority will give into whatever demands they will come up with this time around (I'm guessing women's health will be involved). This strategy has worked well for them thus far, just look at the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans and the current FY 2011 budget debate. These were both issues where the Democrat's made concessions to the GOP even though it was in direct opposition to public opinion and to the detriment of our economic recovery. Can't blame the Republicans, go with what works until it stops working.
What actually makes up our $14.294 trillion debt? $4.62 trillion is money we owe ourselves. Confused? You should be, we're the only country that does this; when Social Security runs a surplus we take that surplus and invest it in the US Treasury, this provides a safe investment for Social Security dollars that will need to be used for future benefit payments. So this isn't true "debt" it's more of an investment. About $3 trillion is a result of the Bush tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Medicare prescription drug program and just over $600 billion is a result of Obama's stimulus initiatives according to the Obama administration. The majority of the remaining figure are other investments in our country.
Conservatives will argue that the only way to solve our debt problem is to stop carrying debt, they will even use the analogy of a family who needs to reduce their debt by paying off their credit cards, this is false. As I have stated earlier a lot of our debt is in the form of investments. Most Americans have a mortgage which is a debt that is larger than their annual income, does this mean they should allow their homes to go into foreclosure? Or should they try to pay off our entire mortgage balance this year and cut the rest of their household budget? Of course not because a mortgage is an investment. My wife and I have a car payment, should we use our entire household budget to pay it off now? No. Yes a vehicle will decrease in value and there is considerable cost to its operation, but the vehicle is how we are transported to our jobs, jobs which provides us with the revenue to cover our other expenses which include things such as food and clothing. Therefore our care payment is an investment. Should a person not attend college because it will require them to take on debt in the form of student loans? No, a college education will provide them with stability and a greater income that will exceed the initial investment of tuition. The idea that our government should carry no debt is ridiculous, if that was the case then the same would be expected of individuals and businesses. Debt is required to move a person or business forward, the same is true for the government.
What happens if we don't raise the debt ceiling? If we fail to increase the debt ceiling we have two options, the first is to cut the current FY 2011 budget by $738 billion. According to the economic experts I've seen interviewed this will have disastrous effects on our economy, look at how much fighting had to happen just to get to $39 billion in cuts, this would grind our economic recovery to a halt and eliminate thousands of jobs. So option 1 isn't really an option at all, what's option 2? Option 2 is to do nothing which will cause the United States to default on our debts and lead to a worldwide economic collapse. The Great Recession of 2008 would look like boom-times compared to what would happen when the entire world's economic system goes up in smoke. So as you can see we don't really have any option other than raising the debt ceiling and Republicans know it, which is why they will vote to increase it, but they don't want you to know that. They want you (and the Dems) to think they won't vote for it so that the liberals will just give them whatever they want, it's the ultimate game of chicken. But we have the advantage of knowing that they'll swerve out of the way at the last minute. We must stand our ground.
The debt ceiling vote has always come down to politics, both parties know that the debt ceiling must be raised. As an unwritten rule the minority party always votes against raising the limit while the majority party votes to increase it. Take President Obama for example; as a President who is of the majority party he is asking for Congress to increase the debt ceiling even though he voted against its increase in 2006 when he was a Senator. And just like the President many Republicans who will vote against the increase now voted to increase it in 2006. This is normally done without much fanfare but this year is different for the reason I mentioned previously, the Republicans want something. The only thing we have to fear of this debate is that it will drag on and garner wide media coverage, this will ultimately lead to a decline in the confidence of our markets as the debate drags on. When we reach the final hours of the deadline just enough Republicans will cross the aisle to vote in favor of an increase to the debt ceiling whether they get what they're asking for or not, that's their plan and it's not really a secret. The media will fall for the Republican tactic just as they have over the past few debates, but we don't have to.
The debt ceiling is the amount of debt the federal government can rack-up (note that does not necessarily mean the government has to borrow that much). The first debt ceiling was set in 1917 at $11.5 billion and has been increased 74 times since 1962 to the current level of $14.294 trillion, which was set in 2010. The current debt ceiling is estimated to be reached on May 16, 2011.
You may notice that in the above paragraph I mention that it has been raised 74 times in the past 48 years (and nearly 100 times since 1917) with 10 of those increases occurring since 2001. Now you may be asking yourself "why am I hearing so much about this now when I never heard anything about it the previous 74 times?" That's a great question, it's because the Republicans want something. Their plan is to hold the world economy hostage with the threat of not raising the debt ceiling in hopes that the Democratic majority will give into whatever demands they will come up with this time around (I'm guessing women's health will be involved). This strategy has worked well for them thus far, just look at the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans and the current FY 2011 budget debate. These were both issues where the Democrat's made concessions to the GOP even though it was in direct opposition to public opinion and to the detriment of our economic recovery. Can't blame the Republicans, go with what works until it stops working.
What actually makes up our $14.294 trillion debt? $4.62 trillion is money we owe ourselves. Confused? You should be, we're the only country that does this; when Social Security runs a surplus we take that surplus and invest it in the US Treasury, this provides a safe investment for Social Security dollars that will need to be used for future benefit payments. So this isn't true "debt" it's more of an investment. About $3 trillion is a result of the Bush tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Medicare prescription drug program and just over $600 billion is a result of Obama's stimulus initiatives according to the Obama administration. The majority of the remaining figure are other investments in our country.
Conservatives will argue that the only way to solve our debt problem is to stop carrying debt, they will even use the analogy of a family who needs to reduce their debt by paying off their credit cards, this is false. As I have stated earlier a lot of our debt is in the form of investments. Most Americans have a mortgage which is a debt that is larger than their annual income, does this mean they should allow their homes to go into foreclosure? Or should they try to pay off our entire mortgage balance this year and cut the rest of their household budget? Of course not because a mortgage is an investment. My wife and I have a car payment, should we use our entire household budget to pay it off now? No. Yes a vehicle will decrease in value and there is considerable cost to its operation, but the vehicle is how we are transported to our jobs, jobs which provides us with the revenue to cover our other expenses which include things such as food and clothing. Therefore our care payment is an investment. Should a person not attend college because it will require them to take on debt in the form of student loans? No, a college education will provide them with stability and a greater income that will exceed the initial investment of tuition. The idea that our government should carry no debt is ridiculous, if that was the case then the same would be expected of individuals and businesses. Debt is required to move a person or business forward, the same is true for the government.
What happens if we don't raise the debt ceiling? If we fail to increase the debt ceiling we have two options, the first is to cut the current FY 2011 budget by $738 billion. According to the economic experts I've seen interviewed this will have disastrous effects on our economy, look at how much fighting had to happen just to get to $39 billion in cuts, this would grind our economic recovery to a halt and eliminate thousands of jobs. So option 1 isn't really an option at all, what's option 2? Option 2 is to do nothing which will cause the United States to default on our debts and lead to a worldwide economic collapse. The Great Recession of 2008 would look like boom-times compared to what would happen when the entire world's economic system goes up in smoke. So as you can see we don't really have any option other than raising the debt ceiling and Republicans know it, which is why they will vote to increase it, but they don't want you to know that. They want you (and the Dems) to think they won't vote for it so that the liberals will just give them whatever they want, it's the ultimate game of chicken. But we have the advantage of knowing that they'll swerve out of the way at the last minute. We must stand our ground.
The debt ceiling vote has always come down to politics, both parties know that the debt ceiling must be raised. As an unwritten rule the minority party always votes against raising the limit while the majority party votes to increase it. Take President Obama for example; as a President who is of the majority party he is asking for Congress to increase the debt ceiling even though he voted against its increase in 2006 when he was a Senator. And just like the President many Republicans who will vote against the increase now voted to increase it in 2006. This is normally done without much fanfare but this year is different for the reason I mentioned previously, the Republicans want something. The only thing we have to fear of this debate is that it will drag on and garner wide media coverage, this will ultimately lead to a decline in the confidence of our markets as the debate drags on. When we reach the final hours of the deadline just enough Republicans will cross the aisle to vote in favor of an increase to the debt ceiling whether they get what they're asking for or not, that's their plan and it's not really a secret. The media will fall for the Republican tactic just as they have over the past few debates, but we don't have to.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
The Big Intoduction
First let me start by saying that I have absolutely no idea what I'm doing and am probably in way over my head. This is my first and feeble attempt at a blog; after extensive researching of the internets I've concluded that a blog is a space for nonsensical rants by those who are extremely narcissistic and quite possibly delusional and that's just perfect for me! As you have probably gathered from the name of my blog I am a liberal and do a lot of shouting at the TV, computer, magazines, and newspapers. Yes I realize that "fistshaking" is not a word but the butchering of our written English language seems to be a la mode in our ever-changing online lexicon.
I guess this is where I should state what the purpose/objective/mission of this blog is and even though I'm sure it will evolve into something perverted from my original intent I'll give it a shot:
I truly think that our political discourse is taking a right turn. Don't believe me? Just take a look at how far President Obama's policies have moved to center-right from candidate Obama's desires. This has primarily occurred from a GOP that has been hijacked by the most extreme components of the Conservative movement such as the "Tea Party." Conservatives are taking such a hard right position on many issues that they are shifting entire debates within the arena of conservatism making some liberals look as if they were former members of the Republican Party. This is even the case with issues where the "liberal" position (which would formally have been considered the moderate position) garners overwhelming public support, but yet the left will move to the right of that popular opinion and as the debate drags on so does the general public. Why? Misinformation which was formally called "lying." Take for example that in the recent budget debate Arizona Senator Jon Kyle noted that abortions were "well over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does", that number is actually 3%, and when approached with this discrepancy all his staff could say was "his remark was not intended to be a factual statement." Wow, well I guess at least they would admit to it which is more than I can say for a lot of politicians and media outlets.
The intention of this blog is to cut through the fog and help demonstrate that most liberal positions aren't actually that "liberal" and that liberals are just looking out for the best interest of their fellow Americans. I wish to make my case using facts, yes actual facts, that will be cited (note the hyperlink on the 3% figure for example) in my blog! I also want to put a spotlight on stories that the media just isn't covering that are important to all Americans and should be front page news. This also includes continuing stories that the media stops covering once they think the issue has been "resolved" or that they feel the audience just stops caring (or they get distracted by the latest Charlie Sheen escapade).
I travel with my job and many times have nobody to debate these topics with, or if somebody is with me they're Canadian and who cares what they think anyways (always like to pick on my friends up north). I also don't want to monopolize my phone conversations back home and Facebook posts with politics and hope the blog will be an effective outlet for my tirades and diatribes. If I can make the truth more clear for just one reader I will feel that this blog has been a success.
Thanks and I hope you'll follow along.
I guess this is where I should state what the purpose/objective/mission of this blog is and even though I'm sure it will evolve into something perverted from my original intent I'll give it a shot:
I truly think that our political discourse is taking a right turn. Don't believe me? Just take a look at how far President Obama's policies have moved to center-right from candidate Obama's desires. This has primarily occurred from a GOP that has been hijacked by the most extreme components of the Conservative movement such as the "Tea Party." Conservatives are taking such a hard right position on many issues that they are shifting entire debates within the arena of conservatism making some liberals look as if they were former members of the Republican Party. This is even the case with issues where the "liberal" position (which would formally have been considered the moderate position) garners overwhelming public support, but yet the left will move to the right of that popular opinion and as the debate drags on so does the general public. Why? Misinformation which was formally called "lying." Take for example that in the recent budget debate Arizona Senator Jon Kyle noted that abortions were "well over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does", that number is actually 3%, and when approached with this discrepancy all his staff could say was "his remark was not intended to be a factual statement." Wow, well I guess at least they would admit to it which is more than I can say for a lot of politicians and media outlets.
The intention of this blog is to cut through the fog and help demonstrate that most liberal positions aren't actually that "liberal" and that liberals are just looking out for the best interest of their fellow Americans. I wish to make my case using facts, yes actual facts, that will be cited (note the hyperlink on the 3% figure for example) in my blog! I also want to put a spotlight on stories that the media just isn't covering that are important to all Americans and should be front page news. This also includes continuing stories that the media stops covering once they think the issue has been "resolved" or that they feel the audience just stops caring (or they get distracted by the latest Charlie Sheen escapade).
I travel with my job and many times have nobody to debate these topics with, or if somebody is with me they're Canadian and who cares what they think anyways (always like to pick on my friends up north). I also don't want to monopolize my phone conversations back home and Facebook posts with politics and hope the blog will be an effective outlet for my tirades and diatribes. If I can make the truth more clear for just one reader I will feel that this blog has been a success.
Thanks and I hope you'll follow along.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)