OPPRESSIVE EXPEDIENTS
“There is no part of the administration of government that requires extensive information and a thorough knowledge of the principles of political economy so much as the business of taxation. The man who understands those principles best will be least likely to resort to oppressive expedients, or to sacrifice any particular class of citizens to the procurement of revenue.” Alexander Hamilton (The Federalist Papers No. 36, page 168)
And where are those men to be found? The first reaction of the democrat is to raise taxes and the first response of the conservative is to protect the rich from having their taxes raised and to borrow from subsequent generations money that has yet to be earned.
THE HEALTH OF TAXES AND THE DEATH OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE?
Health care and taxes: Why would I reintroduce the topic of health care when I am so thoroughly steeped in the topic of taxation? Because the conservatives are all about protecting everyone’s individual liberty, by which we feel more empowered because we get to keep more of our own money, wherein we are not taxed in order to pay more for other people’s health care. On that count, I can stipulate. In a Time magazine Briefing snippet, unrelated to the topic of health care, I read that if the earnings cap is eliminated, which is apparently something that Obama was for, and may still be, the richest people in the country, those making more than $1 million a year, would be paying an extra $55,676 a year. I can sum up how I feel about that in two words- unfair. (Note, that was one word- I reserve the right to call in on that one word for use later and may also demand that a thousand of that word's closest friends be included). If I admit, and can get a liberal to admit, that asking anyone to pay more for health insurance is unfair, and have an unneeded kidney transplant, will the conservatives just shut the hell up without my desiring them to get a prosthetic conscience? Admissions aside, if I sign a letter of intent to eat salmonella infected zorilla stew for the rest of my days, will conservatives please address another talk radio topic other than the health care boondoggle? (This is pure speculation, but a liberal president, like Obama may seek to take from the rich to provide health care to the presently uninsured, and may consider eliminating the earnings cap- I mention that only because I imagine some might wonder what this paragraph has to do with health care.)
Televised funerals: We televised a pop idol’s funeral in July and will probably have televised bug funerals before I figure out how to end this blog saga. No wonder we spend more than $2 trillion annually on health care- (16% of our GDP), our way of coping with the premature death of a pop music icon is to charge admission to a funeral while a bankrupted state (California) asks for taxpayer donations to defray the costs of the event. When I asked (in part 45* and part 48- in a paragraph simply titled- The plan) what was the government’s plan, I never thought I would find out so soon- during the national debate on health care legislation.**
Health care tax: From an Associated Press article- “Obama Leaves Door Open to New Tax on Health Benefits, June 24, 2009- “President Obama left the door open to a new tax on health care benefits Wednesday, and officials said top lawmakers and the White House were seeking $150 billion in concessions from the nation’s hospitals as they sought support for legislation struggling to emerge in Congress.” I like how the legislation is described in the same way as a premature cuscus, whose father will have a Napoleon complex on its behalf, would be described if it entered the world from the womb of a yellow lab (who, by the way, is no member of the blue dog coalition). I could quote three pages worth of articles concerning health care legislation (so I'll do it in four, also being mindful of the 30 some paragraphs I wrote in part 33), ridiculing each side (republican and democrat) for their inclusions and omissions in a proposed health care bill, talk about the aggregate demand,*** especially from the public, for a revolutionary health care bill (in that it will make it more affordable) and mock the unions for wanting to get an employer tax exclusion, but to put it bluntly, I’m running out of marginally entertaining animal maladies.
Health care solution: I don’t know every particular in all of the health care proposals floating in the devious minds of egomaniacal politicians attempting to birth a workable solution to our health care problem. What I do know is this:**** most republicans seem to want no part of a government-run insurance plan and the democrats don’t want to just allow private insurance companies to continue on the present path of interpreted excessive health care charges, or so they say. The best bill is probably going to include a way for the public to have the choice between a single payer or universal health care run by the government or the existing system. There will doubtless be modifications to the existing system, and changes to the perfect bill, but the better bill will include a combination of those two options. I’m about as sure of this as I am about the investment opportunities surrounding the bacon-scented candle. It is possible that democrats, seeing as they are the party in power and stand to gain millions more in campaign dollars (see below) would seek to stifle a semi-reasonable bill or enact a weak one that does include a public option so that simply passing a bill that provides taxpayers the opportunity the choice of their own downfall, will silence those who critcize the current health care system. Or is that just paranoia? Again, the fine print must be read, we must actually be given a real choice and not a choice of nightmares, in order to determine which openly competing option is the better of the two.
Liberal conservatism: One question I have after watching a debate between a conservative and liberal about various versions of health care bill provisions . . . the conservative feared a government run health care program's costliness. He wanted no part of the public being given a choice between the present system and the government's version. I had to wonder why. Why would conservatives be so against competition? Conservatives simply adore the lawlessness of the free market and seem physically ill any time someone mentions the word- regulations. Wouldn't a bill which provided the public an option between the present version, run by private health insurance conglomerates and what they believe will be a failed federal government version the very essence of free market competition? If the government's universal health care version is to be proven inadequate, more expensive and replete with beuracracy, (much like the present option mind you) shouldn't we find out once given the choice? In their conservatism, should they avoid being called hypocrites, wouldn't it be best if they were more liberal and then proceed to milk the public of even more of the wages the present health care system ought to let us keep? Conservatives will consistently rail against a government for limiting their freedom to choose how to spend their money, but when they may perhaps be offered a choice between getting screwed by something they are familiar with or something they have never been screwed by before, apparently the devil they know is preferable. Fortunately, we know all of the devils and cannot keep ourselves from getting screwed- (see the all too familiar, at least where politics is concerned, 5-legged whore metaphor I use below.)
Types of payments: From a June 28, 2009 Minneapolis Star Tribune Editorial, OP2- “Payment is Key in Health Care Reform.” Most people do tend to get caught up in who those with ailments or procedures are going to have to pay- private insurers or the federal government run health care system. It is hard to argue with the observations: “The Democrats’ main proposals boil down to putting more people into a wasteful, expensive system—without fixing what makes it expensive and wasteful. Talk of a tax to pay for expanded access is premature. Costs would continue to soar. Any new tax would have to be raised again and again to cover them.” This is particularly problematic if those employees who were members of unions were exempt from any such tax, as has been discussed. I don't care if I have to pay a chamois with rickets for my health care, just as long as the price goes down and those, such as pharmaceutical companies, health professionals and health insurance companies are made to pay for their greed. Something, I might remind someone like Mr. George Will, has rarely happened when the prospective transgressor is the health care industry. (See part 49 and a few paragraphs below.)
Health care supply and demand: The editorial continues: “The issue that needs to be front and center is reimbursement: how the government and insurers pay providers for patient care. The problem is the fee-for-service system, which pays doctors per procedure provided.” Someone that may or may not be qualified thinks that approach “encourages providers not to offer as much care as needed, but to offer as much care as possible . . . Up to 50 percent of health care is driven by supply, not demand.” Until we get some other things under control, the editorial hints- such as a “new technology infrastructure” to “gather data linking providers’ costs to outcome”, “care coordination”, “community wellness programs” who provides the health care is a secondary concern. I would add, reducing redundant procedures, conflicting prognoses, bureaucratic red tape, kickbacks to physicians for prescribing certain pharmaceuticals, etc., are also problem areas. So, taking the patient’s wellness into consideration is important, and wondering about the necessity of service is just as important as who gets to fund that service and how, or if, taxes should be raised to do so.
“Expanding a Broken System?”: is the title of a recent health care reform profile article written by Minneapolis Star Tribune columnist Lori Sturdevant, which appeared in the July 19, 2009 edition (OP1 & OP4). She profiles an expert in the ways and means of health care distribution whose major point is that “ ‘If you expand health insurance without addressing the system itself, you are financing an even worse system than what you set out to correct.’ ” His resolution to our hotly debated issue is to reward those who perform the best, Sturdevant’s summary of her expert’s ideas amounts to this- “Reward doctors for improving the health of their patients.” This won’t work for two reasons- only one of which is mentioned in the article. Her expert states that “ ‘Every cost item in this system is income for somebody else.’ 1) Those who receive all those fees for unnecessary services won’t easily let them go.” 2) Barely anyone in the country, from teachers, to contractors, to actors, to ballplayers, to politicians (especially those that are mayors of towns in New Jersey), to Ron Jeremy, even ptarmigan bail-bondsmen who are considered to be exceptional at faking anaphylaxis, are not paid based on how effectively they perform. Why would a health care professional be saddled with more far-reaching expectations?
The reality: Campaign dollars will cease to flow to the politicians who back a bill that leaves doctors, pharmaceutical companies or insurance providers, among others, to find revenue someplace else. I’m sure I’ve mentioned this a few times. Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and his ignorant minions would have you believe that the liberals just want to raise taxes on the rich for no good reason and I’ve heard them whine so frequently on talk radio the past month that I am considering employing a leech that suffers from counterintuitive thoughts to suck the blood out of anything in my eardrum which might assist me in hearing. I would rather have the state find me a job wrangling quadriplegic bison, with my success determined by the number I could guide into a corral and my reward being the deafness that would originate from the leech placed into my eardrum than not complain about how pivotal solving the campaign finance situation is.
CAMPAIGN FINANCE TIED TO THE HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY OR FROTTEURISM AND LOBBYISTS
"Legislating Under the Influence": . . . is an in depth analysis about money's affect on politics, particularly where the issue of health care insurance is concerned. The article was written by Josh Zaharoff, Common Cause's deputy program director. The full text is available at www.commoncause.org/healthcare2009. Surely someone at the EIB (Excellence In Broadcasting) radio network could subjectively pick holes in everything contained within. But a conservative would refute the pain they caused a dove with the bird flu while commanding, at gunpoint, that the bird catheterize itself, though it was videotaped, with 1,500 witnesses. You could consider that I am a lobbyist. I have given about $100 to Common Cause over the past 18 months in order to have them attempt to secure, primarily, some form of financially fair elections. At this point, not only is the health care reform bill being hotly contested in congressional halls and town halls all over the country with some very over protective democratic wetbacks and some very vocal republican sourpusses, but another bill, far more important, is somewhere on congressional desks or in congressional briefcases, (if there is room for it, the health care bill is over 1200 pages). This bill would simplify the passage and debate on both the health care bill and the energy bill. The name of this bill is "The Fair Elections Now Act".
Fair elections now I: The bills, there are multiple (S. 752 and H.R. 1826) in my opinion, do not go far enough. H.R. 1826, Section 101 reads like this-
"(a) Undermining of Democracy by Campaign Contributions From Private Sources- The House of Representatives finds and declares that the current system of privately financed campaigns for election to the House of Representatives has the capacity, and is often perceived by the public, to undermine democracy in the United States by . . ." The tenor of much of the bill concerns the same, and the subclauses which fall under (a) above are worth quoting.
"(1) creating a culture that fosters actual or perceived conflicts of interest, by encouraging Members of the House to accept large campaign contributions from private interests that are directly affected by Federal legislation;
"(2) diminishing or appearing to diminish Members’ accountability to constituents by compelling legislators to be accountable to the major contributors who finance their election campaigns;
"(3) undermining the meaning of the right to vote by allowing monied interests to have a disproportionate and unfair influence within the political process;
"(4) imposing large, unwarranted costs on taxpayers through legislative and regulatory distortions caused by unequal access to lawmakers for campaign contributors;
"(5) making it difficult for some qualified candidates to mount competitive House election campaigns;
"(6) disadvantaging challengers and discouraging competitive elections, because large campaign contributors tend to donate their money to incumbent Members, thus causing House elections to be less competitive; and
"(7) burdening incumbents with a preoccupation with fundraising and thus decreasing the time available to carry out their public responsibilities."
Fair elections II: Shouldn't fairness be the primary reason to enact a law such as this in order to protect the taxpayers from the moneyed interests of lobbyists for corporations, including, but not restricted to health insurance providers, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and HMOs and health professionals? The bill even takes into consideration the start date of campaigning for election, so perhaps we wouldn't have any more two year long campaigns; of course, the H.R. 1826 bill seems to focus on the house of representatives. Unfortunately, after the democrats and republicans get done ignoring it, spending so much time bitching about what should and shouldn't be included in any of the various health care reform bill without a bullshit recall notice being mailed to our representatives by the taxpayer, the Fair Elections bill will look like a bald, five-legged whore with muscular dystrophy waiting on the next watered down insemination from a strung out politician who was just given $5,000 by the pharmaceutical company of their choice to roadblock any meaningful prescription drug provision, which, to conclude the metaphor, will force the bill/whore to close most of her legs.
Back to "Legislating Under the Influence": For justification of a fair elections bill, or ten, making the rounds in Washington, we need look no further than the microcosm of the health care reform debate (again, if you can call a 1,200 page bill that has almost insighted a civil war between the republicans and democrats) a microcsm of anything. In Zaharoff's electronic pamphlet, he writes- "A recent poll found that 60 percent of voters believe Congress puts the interests of campaign contributors over constituents, and 79 percent are worried that dependence on large campaign contributions will prevent Congress from tackling the important issues facing America today." (Zaharoff p. 1) (Note: I would prefer that the two parties agree on some kind of national polling agency, so that they can both discontinue their questioning of the voracity of any poll numbers that don't back up their assertions. Breathe easy, we could outsource this agency to India or China so that we could trust the numbers and give even more jobs to workers overseas. Pretty soon, rich CEOs will be able to outsource their own bowel movements.)
Health industry campaign contributions: "health insurance, pharmaceuticals and health products, hospitals and HMOs, and health professionals--have contributed about $373 million in campaign contributions to members of Congress since 2000." (Zaharoff, p.2) Most of the money goes to people on health care-related committees or subcommittees, those in congress who are more likely to be swayed on particular votes- "Since 2000, the House members sitting on health committees have raised twice as much money from the health industry per election cycle as non-committee members (an average of 171,000 compared to 87,000.". More money goes to the party in political power, to which the health care industry shows no allegiance- in 2000, "Republicans on health-related committees received more than double what Democrats received (68 percent to 32 percent) from the health industries." In 2008, those percentages were well on their way to completely flipping. No wonder it is so imperative that one party wins over the other, the candidates know how much they can get from just the health care industry alone in order to help them stay in power and to keep getting more and more campaign finance help. I imagine one can get so side-tracked in campaigning for more money, and spending it on attack ads, and visits to all of their congressional districts in the course of 18 months that they can forget about actually representing the people who also had a hand in electing them.
This one is too big a number to hide in one of my traditionally long paragraphs- "The major health interests have spent an average of $1.4 million per day to lobby Congress so far this year and are on track to spend more than half a billion dollars by the end [sic] 2009." (Zaharoff p. 3) $1.4 MILLION A DAY! "That comes out to about $2,600 per day per member of the House and Senate." (Zaharoff, p. 3) Unfortunately, "The price tag for this effort pales in comparison the impact that meaningful health care reform would have on their [the health care industry's] bottom line." (Zaharoff, p. 7)
By the numbers: Zaharoff's report lists campaign contributions from the health care industry by party and per member of congress who serve on the five committees with jurisdiction over health care. There are tables showing how much members have received per year, and per industry. "Recent polling shows tat 76 percent of the American people want the ability to choose a public health insurance option." (Zaharoff, p. 5) Again, this poll probably takes into consideration just the epitome of what the taxpayer hopes is a logical, well-intentioned version of a public option, without the political red-tape, and one which solves most of the problems caused by the present private insurer's method, without creating new ones. That is not possible with 20 members of the senate receiving more than $1.7 million in campaign contributions from the health care industry since 2000, from interests, it cannot be denied, are opposed to reform. Besides, and this in no way should distract any of my negative readers, but how do we really know that all of that money is used for campaigns? Mightn't a few thousand dollars be misplaced and spent on home renovations, a new boat, office carpeting, a night out with one's mistress who is either a golden-headed lemur or Argentinian woman (with apologies to South Carolina governor Sanford), a trip to Cancun, a funnel so that accepted monies could be directed to the foundation or charity of their choice (ala Orrin Hatch of Utah), a framed, gold-embossed, picture of whichever senator comes to mind with the devil, signed-by-the-dark lord of the underground himself? Have I mentioned how like, taking and spending a largely unregulated, several million dollars in campaign finance donations is like Brewster's Millions? Oh yes, in part 39 . . . how could I forget.
By the numbers II: Senator Pat Roberts, a republican from Kansas, "a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee since 2002, had never raised more than $100,000 from the health industries in a previous cycle. In 2007, he took a seat on the Senate Finance Committee and its Health Subcomittee, and in the 2007-08 cycle alone he raised over $710,000 from health industries." (Zaharoff, p. 9) Party affiliation doesn't matter, as Zaharoff has indicated. However, as I've indicated, more democrats these days, given the majorities in the house and senate, are raking in campaign finance donations, especially if they are a member of a health industries-related committee. I felt I needed to pacify any republican by pointing that out, before they whined about the present campaign finance allocation disparity.
Frotteurism: Who knew political frotteurism could be this unexhilirating. Candidates take money to stay on top. They hold dinners to fund-raise and most assuredly neglect the reading of 1,200 page bills specifically and those whom they are elected to represent generally. Who can debate that? Corporations and industries and their lobbyists would contribute $5 million to the political candidate's war chests for one reason, they stand assured of making $6 million in return on that investment, otherwise, why would they do it. There is no greater truth in politics than that. Where might these corporations come by such money? Either from their pleasure of doing business with us, our payment for services they have been allowed to overcharge us for, by politicians whom they subsidize (a good reason to stifle any hint of health care reform, to use one example) or because of tax breaks that are given to businesses, industries and corporations, which ensures that the middle class (no longer protected from any possibility of a tax increase in recent weeks judging by the comments of Obama or Obama administation officials) will suffer even further than they do now and will suffer even more in the future. In short, if you solve the mess that is campaign finance, current issues like health care and energy policy and future fights between the two major political parties like entitlements (social security, welfare) and the forthcoming social agenda items will be lessened in scope 1000 fold.
OUR OWN MONEY AGAINST US
Tax dependence: A 501(c)(3)***** company has the stated objective that reads like this- “The mission of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is to advance the Jeffersonian principles of free markets, limited government, federalism, and individual liberty among America’s state legislators.” Some interesting facts about ALEC:
1) “ALEC’s . . . core members include more than twenty-four hundred state legislators, which amounts to about a third of all of our state reps.” (Dobbs, Independents Day, page 118)
2) ALEC “has more than three hundred corporate and private foundation members . . . these companies and lobbying groups provide close to 95 percent of ALEC’s financing.” (Dobbs, Independents Day, page 119)
3) “ ‘In 2004 alone 1,108 ALEC model bills were introduced and 178 were enacted into law.’ ” I am quoting from Dobbs again, page 120 of Independents Day, who is quoting from the ALEC website. These people are more proud of the fleecing they are giving to the American people, not even in the name of duty, than a sheep would be if it could sheer itself while climaxing, and never notice how they have involved their anterior cingulated cortex (which is the part of the brain where people suffering through a moral dilemma have been shown to have increased activity), which in turn signals the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex that is to provide executive control. Could happen. Some animals are crazy.
4) “The relationship between members has been referred to by critics as ‘pay to play,’ indicating that corporate America ponies up the dollars in order to work, and play, with our elected officials in a convenient and mutually beneficial environment. For years the tobacco industry has been a significant benefactor to ALEC’s mission, contributing more than two hundred thousand dollars annually and paying for the organization’s legal bills. It, like other members, sponsors parties, retreats, and other junkets for state legislators who are key to getting legislation passed.” Anyone remember when legislators were disgusted by AIG and other members of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program who accepted money, bought luxury jets and took expensive vacations with the money they were given? This is hypocrisy at work- a decent number of those politicians are ALEC members, but who would never bring up the scoundrel nature of their own affiliations.
5) It costs only $5,000 to become a member, but memberships “are offered either to legislators or to private-sector organizations.”
6) Worst of all- “Not only do organizations like . . . ALEC work specifically for the benefit of corporate America and special interests, they’re taking money out of your pocket. Donors to these organizations get a write-off; they don’t have to pay taxes on their donations. But the 501(c)(3) [such as ALEC, there are others] themselves don’t have to pay taxes either, putting them in a category with churches. Since any think tank worth its salt brings in millions of dollars a year, that’s a lot of money that’s not getting taxed. It’s a double shot to the American people: The money is effectively used against us, and its tax-free status means that the shortfall is probably going to have to come out of our pockets at tax time.”
If anything I have written to date should come appended to an image of Edvard Munch’s famous “The Scream” image it is this. So, when a guy, like Arnold Schwarzenegger, that does not seem to fit the description outlined by Hamilton in the paragraph I quote from which heads this post, says “I need your help” asking voters to understand his decision to raise taxes because of a $15 billion budget shortfall, ask why someone with the power to rat out those organizations that have corrupted the moral authority and that could attempt to stop them from using our tax money, we should treat him like a feral pygmy swan who has mated with a large fish with a full cartilaginous skeleton (a shark) to form some super species of death that can fly hundreds of feet in the air and dive to a depth of a thousand feet below sea level. What kind of vampire-infested country are we living in? And don't even tell me you've never been aware of the type of creature I reference in the last, but one, sentence in this paragraph- you've certainly voted for one now and again.
Anti-trust, to be sure: I long ago began to feel toward politics how I’ve felt about the BCS (Bowl Championship Series) college bowl game setup. Arlen Spector is the lone senator looking into anti-trust violations in college football. One of the prime defenses of those backing the BCS format in the anti-trust hearings is that their attorneys have ensured that anti-trust laws are being adhered to. Anyone who uses attorneys to defend the athletic viability of a championship and not allow the most qualified teams to play each other in some kind of playoff system,****** is more untrustworthy than a jackal that is a compulsive liar on its first day of fasting for Ramadan trapped inside of a cage that also houses a Jewish peccary taunting the jackal for its religious beliefs.
GAO 1: Thankfully we have something called the GAO (Government Accountability Office) to take care of issues like this while most of us are unaware of how provable and longstanding are the above types of shameless grandstanding and immoral behaviors. The GAO website offers this kind of reassurance: “The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is known as "the investigative arm******* of Congress" and "the congressional watchdog." GAO supports the Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and helps improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people.”
GAO 2: Further- “The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress. Often called the "congressional watchdog," GAO investigates how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars. The head of GAO, the Comptroller General of the United States, is appointed to a 15-year term by the President from a slate of candidates Congress proposes.” There isn’t the slightest chance we need an empowered taxpayer-backed non-governmental watchdog which could replace the GAO, is there? Congress proposes candidates to be the head of the GAO. I could be a vampire, but as long as I keep my dog walked and fed he will serve me well.
GAO3: One of the duties of the GAO is to “advise Congress and the heads of executive agencies about ways to make government more efficient, effective, ethical, equitable and responsive.” Have you advised congress of anything they could do to improve lately? When I mentioned in part 9 about government waste and have all along insisted that no one’s taxes (not even the rich) should be raised to pay for the blunders of government in mismanaging our collective account, things like ALEC are those which I had in mind (see #6 directly above). When I talk about the income gap between the rich and middle class, the things that could be prevented as the causes of this are in the hands of agencies like the GAO, and they are failing us miserably.
Tax info: So, when you read just the heading of an article less than a week out from last fall’s presidential election (from October 31, 2008) that “Neither Candidate Addresses Wealth Gap” by David Lightman, St. Paul Pioneer Press, 3A, with quotations that read like this: “ ‘Taxes are not going to solve the problem,’ . . . ‘Nobody’s going to stand for the kind of confiscatory taxes you would need.’ ” And that is why I am not in favor of simply raising anyone’s taxes. McCain’s approach, the article relates, would allow “the rich to keep more of their income on the theory they’ll invest and spend, thereby creating more jobs and wealth.” No wonder this guy lost- the jobs that rich people create are going overseas, because employing overseas workers allows them to keep even more of their money. The only thing that rich people are interested in investing in is the odds that the Constitution won’t be amended to actually protect the people in the most dire need of protection- U.S. workers who will lose their jobs to overseas workers. (Note: I’m pretty sure that is why the Constitution was adopted to begin with, at least on the surface. In reality, it appears that it was adopted to protect agencies like ALEC.) The article I mention above also boasts this line, which is what I’ve been writing about since I started this bloga- “While Americans at all income levels saw their wealth increase during the 1990s, the top 1 percent’s income exploded. Since George W. Bush became president, their share kept growing while everyone else’s income barely rose.” And I wouldn't even complain about that if it weren't so hard to afford a family and seen that the next few generations of middle class wage-earners will have an even worse time- funding retirement, taking a vacation, getting their children a post-secondary education, affording health care . . .
Tax rate history: The article (by Lightman) also reminds everyone that Obama wanted to “return the two top income-tax rates to pre-2001 levels in 2011—the same rates as during the Clinton era, which saw the longest sustained economic expansion in U.S. history. That would mean a top income-tax rate of 39.6 percent, far below the 70 percent top rate that existed until 1981, or even the 50 percent top rate of 1982-1986—not to mention the top rates of more than 90 percent that prevailed from the end of World War II until 1963.” Some of those percentages are ridiculous, why would the rich even work at all if 90% of the money they earned was taken from them by a government that allows agencies like ALEC to exist in their protected forms. Today, the top 10% pay almost 66% of the Federal Personal Income Tax, a tax rate progressivity that would be undeniably frustrating. If I were in the top 10%, despite my overall material advantage, I would despise any lawmaker that wanted to take even more of my money. We are inundated with important tax rate information- “Millions of families . . . have either zero tax liability or receive a net transfer from the government due to the refundable portion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and/or the Child Tax Credit (CTC).” (Source: Joint Economic Committee Research Report from May 2006.) Balancing the facts behind government waste, Welfare fraud and abuse specifically, the government dole generally, I would rather see the richest 10% and the richest 50% (the middle class) thrive after we get a program for reducing wasteful federal and state spending in place. People have earned their income and have a right to keep it.******** And I don't mean to forsake the poor, who we also have a duty to protect, so long as they aren't abusing this aid, which it seems, plenty of them are doing and are allowed to do, by the government- (which I've mentioned since at least part 6 and included in part 27 on the subtopic of immigration and under its own heading in part 32).
Bankruptcy via taxes I: The news from the world of Double Income No Kids is this- “The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 tightened bankruptcy laws to weed out chronic problems of fraud and abuse—and to restore public confidence in the integrity of the bankruptcy system.” Why congress can’t pass a law which restores public confidence in the adoption, debate and passage of federal legislation generally would have been an obvious and necessary precursor to the specific bankruptcy legislation. And to be honest, despite how important it was to restore the public confidence in the bankruptcy system, it might have been a tad more important for the credit card companies and health insurers—two of the biggest reasons for the legislation in the first place. Some, like the authors of the book “The Two Income Trap: Middle Class Mothers and Fathers are Going Broke,” argue that personal bankruptcies will again rise due to “rising health care costs and higher mortgage payments for increasingly expensive homes.”
Bankruptcy via taxes II: Todd Zywicki, in his article, “The Two Income Tax Trap” August 17, 2007 has found another reason, he writes: “they have overlooked the most important contributor to the purported household budget crunch—taxes.”
Alert- extensive derivative and quoted material in order to show how each is only half right (see, because that is what I do)-
The authors of the book (a Harvard law school professor and her daughter) “compare two middle-class families: an average family in the 1970s versus the 2000s (all dollar values are inflation-adjusted). The typical 1970s family is headed by a working father and a stay-at-home mother with two children . . . the typical 2000s family has two working parents . . .”
70s family, working father 2000s family, dual income
Figures for the family of the 2000s are in [ ]
Income- $38,700 [$67,800]
Mortgage- $5,310 [$9,000]
Car- $5,140 [$8,000]
Health Ins. $1,030 [$1,650]
Tax rate- 24% [33%]
Day care- $0 [$9,670]
Net result-$17,834 (about $1,500 a month) [$17,045 (less than the earlier generation)]
Three things to keep in mind- 1) neither family is netting over $17 grand after taxes. By the words "net result" they mean that is what is left after the listed expenses have been accounted for. Whatever is left in discretionary income (the net result) must go toward food, clothing, savings and to fund a retirement, that will require more money than it did for a man and woman who retired 30 years earlier.
2) As Zywicki points out “The authors present no explanation for why they present only the tax data in their two examples as percentages instead of dollars. Nor do they ever present the actual dollar value for taxes anywhere in the book.” Zywicki does- “for the typical 1970s family, paying 24% of its income in taxes works out to be $9,288. And for the 2000s family, paying 33% of its income is $22,374. Although income only rose 75%, and expenditures for the mortgage, car and health insurance rose by even less than that, the tax bill increased by $13,086—a whopping 140% increase.”
And 3) “The percentage of family income dedicated to health insurance, mortgage and automobiles actually declined between the two periods.” I would point out that the child care costs didn’t and the cost of health insurance, by itself, adjusted for inflation, didn’t. Also, the advent of the home computer with an internet that can drive some learning behaviors (i.e. the necessity of having a patch to a wealth of educational games and learning opportunities has become a necessary cost- we pay $40 a month for high speed internet). Each viewpoint is incomplete. Zywicki also writes that the “ ‘secondary earner bias’ ” could be eliminated********* so that all of the wifes’ income needn’t be taxed at the “much higher marginal tax rate” which in itself is counterproductive, in many cases, of even having a second income, balanced against the identified child care costs not often associated with incomes from 30 years ago. The child tax credit available on modern tax returns is in no way comparable to how much the average couple pays in child care- at least not for income earners in the top 50%. One other note- unless the vicious cycle of less education = less average lifetime earnings is to miraculously cease, both the authors of the book and Zywicki, the author of the article which refutes the figures found in the book, would do well to factor in postsecondary college tuition costs, the costs of home ownership, and other necessary costs, such as the cost of caring for a family member that has contracted a serious illness, a medical cost which I am sure has not been factored into the equation above and which, coincidentally, is a major reason for individual bankruptcy filings********** in the first place, and a major knock against the 2005 bankruptcy legislation with which I began this particular harangue. Oh my, I fear I’ve become even more high maintenance than a limpet with a hyphenated name prior to its betrothal to a kittiwake, when I have stayed on topic than when I digress.
PROPERTY TAX
Proper tax: I once incorrigibly demanded my wife acknowledge that I was at least as offensive accidentally as I was on purpose. That has absolutely nothing to do with property tax- I just wanted to admit that. The logic behind the property tax is about as open and shut a case as one is likely to find, and if one’s property tax goes up in times of prosperity, it ought to go down in times of trouble like any other commodity, for if we've learned nothing, we learned that a house is no longer an investment which we might use to help in financing our old age, but a piece of property we must gain and lose without sentimentality; the state or locality that purposely collects against our domicile’s worth, sharing in our good fortune should not also indifferently avoid lowering that tax. In the article “Tax Bill Appeals Take Rising Toll on Government,” Jack Healy, New York Times, July 4, 2009, Healy writes- “Homeowners across the country are challenging their property tax bills in droves as the values of their homes drop, threatening local governments with another big drain on their budgets.” In the article are these pieces of information:
1) 1) “Officials in some states say their property tax revenue is falling for the first time since World War II.”
2) 2) “The pain at the state level is trickling down to county and local governments. To compensate, about 10 percent of large counties are raising the tax rates associated with home values to minimize the revenue loss.” I can guarantee that rate will, along with everything else I've addressed in the last 2+ years, hurt the middle class sooner than it hurts anyone else.
3) 3) “Property taxes are meted out by a disparate patchwork of cities, towns, counties, and school and fire districts, all with their own rules. Because tax formulas vary widely county to county, not every decrease in assessed values automatically lowers a household’s property taxes.” Why, because that's just how the government roles.
4) 4) “Some towns have hired extra employees to sift through the paperwork.” (I wonder when that work will be outsourced overseas.)
5) 5) “Entire subdivisions are pushing for new tax assessments, as are companies that own office towers, industrial parks and shopping malls.”
6) 6) One woman’s home was assessed a value of $1.8 million but is languishing on the market with an asking price of $1.3 million. Her taxes are increasing to $53,000 a year . . . [she says] ‘If the house is not worth what I bought it for, why am I paying the same amount in taxes?’ ” The government probably has a couple of words for you- rhetorical question.
7) 7) People are trying to save any money they can in this economy. In St. Lucie, Florida, “property tax revenue is expected to fall 20 percent, and tax appeals are 10 times as high as they are normally.”
8) 8) Two conclusions, 1) federal, state and local governments should be forced to reduce spending on government waste- this would increase government revenues. We wouldn’t need to hear about budget shortfalls, each party blaming the other for misspending tax money, each accusing the other of sabotaging (republicans) or complicating (democrats) health care, or one constantly shrieking or caterwauling how offensive are the words and actions and votes of the other, while BOTH continue to infringe on the individual liberty of the middle class, all while the reality of the subterfuge of groups like ALEC sponsoring corporations is never acknowledged by the beneficiaries 2) if our property taxes rise in relation to the perceived value of our homes, they should, and must, fall relative to the real and actualized values of our homes. We know the value by the old adage- something is only worth what you can get for it; and if we can't get as much for it, we shouldn't have to give the municipality, county or state as much, in property taxes, as they desire.
__________________________
* In the paragraph- GDP in the global economy and in the second and fifth footnotes in that number,
** Psst, I haven’t really figured anything out concerning the government’s plan as far as GDP (Gross Domestic Product) spending is concerned- you know, over 9% unemployment, big technology allowed to shift jobs overseas, which will impact domestic consumer spending and in turn reduce the amount of the GDP comprised of consumer spending. Note two things- 1) immediately above I included the word domestic consumer spending. We’ve fallen in love with the global economy for many reasons, not the least of which is pushing American products to consumers half way around the world- after all, no one here is buying them. Thing is, I don’t what Americans even make anymore. I think I saw a real white-tailed deer with the words “Made in India” tattooed on its ass as it bounded across the highway on my way back from the in-laws cabin over the 4th of July weekend. And 2) if congress and the president can actually agree on a health care bill which in the long run reduces medical costs (which is somewhere in the neighborhood of 16% of GDP, what will Americans and the federal government do to make up these losses? What else is there for the government to do besides raise taxes?
**** How do I know this- “Many Democrats insist on having an option for government-run insurance in the legislation so consumers can have a choice other than a plan from private insurers. Republicans are vehemently opposed, and compromise efforts have centered on a proposal for a nonprofit co-operative that would be initially funded by the federal government.”
***** It claims tax exempt status for its charitable designation which are supposed to be prohibited from drafting or influencing legislation.
****** Because some of those teams are from non-power conferences and would conceivably not bring the corporations funding the bowl games as much revenue as some traditional powerhouses who that season underperformed according to their boosters, fans and the media, but because they went 91-11 and won 7 bowl games in the decade of the 80s, they are selected to play in the bowl game. Ah, hell with it- just go look up BCS on Google.
******* This wouldn’t happen to be an “investigative arm” with an invisible hand would it? Don’t know what I’m talking about- Google Adam Smith and the invisible hand.
******** There are always caveats to statements like that. Combined- O.J. Simpson, Dionne Warwick and Sinbad owed the state of California $6.25 million. In fact, “The 250 top listed names owe California more than $249 million combined.” The article further relates that “ ‘Each year, California loses more than $6.5 billion in unpaid taxes.’ ” That is at least one reason that state is about to go bankrupt. The last paragraph contains this quote by the state controller- “ ‘Hopefully, this action [an attempt at shaming tax delinquent celebrities] will encourage these taxpayers to come forward, pay what they owe, and quickly help the Franchise Tax Board remove their names from the list.’ ” Mr. state controller- you are asking a man that went looking for his wife’s murderer on golf coarses across the country, and a comedian that wore zubas more famously than anyone in pop fashion history [and that wasn’t part of his act] to pay money because of a sense of shame? I don’t like your chances. (Source: “Celebs Among Calif.’s List of Worst Tax Debtors.” Reuters, October 17, 2007.) California would have a better chance slowing the gambling addiction of a gila monster by skywriting hieroglyphics across the cumulonimbus-laden skies of Darfur than it does of shaming a celebrity.
