On April 22, 2009, I emailed my Senators and Representative the following:
Please answer the following health care questions:
1. How much do you pay for health insurance per month?
2. Is the above payment for you or your family?
3. Can you go to any doctor, hospital, or medical facility of your choosing?
4. What is your co-pay when you go to a doctor?
5. What is your co-pay for prescription drugs?
The last time I tried this was on October 16, 2008, and I never received an answer to my queries. Hopefully, I will get a response this time, but I am not holding my breath.
If the Federal Government had given every household in the United States $63,000, would we still be in a recession? If we take the 7.2 trillion dollars (7,200,000,000,000) spent on the bailout and divide it among the 114 million US households, each household gets $63,000.
The trickle-down approach is not working. Would a trickle-up approach work? I can think of 63,000 reasons we should try it.
In my Bailout Blues posting on October 2, 2008, I reluctantly supported the bailout of the banks. I now regret supporting the 7.2 trillion dollar bailout because it has been a compete waste of money. The economy is not better, and, in fact, seems to have worsened since the bailout. There has been no financial oversight, and the banks have no discernible plan to improve things.
The mortgage crisis could have been solved for roughly $206 billion. Approximately 1 million homes have been foreclosed at an average price of $206,000. The Feds could have bought the nation’s entire supply of toxic mortgages for $206 billion. Even if the government only received half the value of the loans, the cost is $103 billion instead of $7.2 trillion.
Geoffrey Bagley’s case is instructive. His adjustable rate mortgage started at $1,300/month. After a few years his mortgage shot up to $2,400/month. He applied for and got a loan modification. His mortgage dropped to $2,000/month. The $2,000 became unaffordable when the weak economy reduced the overtime he was relying on to make payments. He lost his home. If the government had bought the loan, and had him pay $1300/month he would still be in his house. “The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency or OCC says new data shows more than 60 percent of loans modified in the first quarter of 2008 fell delinquent again in eight months.”
Many bank executives are still getting bonuses. The executives claim no taxpayer money will go to bonuses, but they cannot track the money because it is “fungible”. If the banks want a bailout, it is time to fire the executives and the boards who caused the problem. If they refuse to leave, then let the banks go bankrupt!
It is time to impose restrictions on any company that receives bailout money. Limit salary to $400,000, equal to the President of the United States. No bonuses or stock options allowed. Get rid of the perks. Taxpayers should not have to pay for corporate jets, country club memberships, chauffeurs, sporting events, etc. Make executives pay for their perks out of their own pockets. Make every bailed out company produce a detailed plan on how they propose to become profitable. These restrictions cannot be removed until bailout money is paid in full with interest.
The car companies, GM and Chrysler, want a bailout and $17.4 billion have been allocated to them. GM and Chrysler will initially get $4 billion each. Before the car companies receive any bailout money, they should be required to develop plans for automobiles that are more fuel efficient, use alternative fuels, and are better designed. Think Honda and Toyota. The January, 2009 issue of Consumer Reports rated family sedans in the $20,000 to $30,000 range. In the $20,000 to $25,000 range, only one American car ranked in the top ten, and it was rated tenth. In the $25,000 to $30,000 range, three American cars ranked in the top ten, and they ranked seventh, eighth and tenth. The US car companies have to produce better cars to remain competitive.
The Feds need to realize that the $7.2 trillion bailout demands financial oversight. If the executives of bailed out companies refuse to comply, then take the money back.
Humorist Dave Barry said that the problem with elections is not the huge sums of money that are spent on them, rather, it is that the average citizen does not get any of this money. Mr. Barry proposed that each candidate vie for the monetary affection of voters. Ballots would state how much money each candidate would pay you for your vote. After you vote, the voting/ATM machine would tally the cash owed and pay you on the spot. Mr. Barry figured this would increase voter turnout and allow the average citizen to benefit.
Likewise, the problem with lobbying is not the huge sums of money spent currying favor with elected officials, but the fact that the average citizen does not benefit. To solve this problem, I propose a cap and trade system for lobbyists. Lobbyist Cap and Trade would make the lobbying process more democratic by allowing citizens to decide which lobbyists have access to Congress. At the beginning of the year, allow each registered voter five temporal units. Then let the lobbyist cap and trade auction begin on the Internet. For one month each voter can sell their temporal units to whom ever they want. A voter could donate their units to select causes, state how much he or she will sell the time for, or sell to the highest bidder. When the auction is over, the money is distributed to the participating voters. Each lobbyist submits how many units they have purchased, and Congress can allocate the time proportionally. No congressperson can receive any lobbying money, other than what he or she received in the auction, just like any other citizen. The amount each lobbyist spent, the temporal units they purchased, and the final allocation of time with Congress should be publicly available via a searchable on-line web application.
Congress works for us, and we should have the final say on whom they can see. If we are going to have the best Congress that money can buy, (although I wish the results were better), it seems only fair that the average citizen receives a portion of the profits.
With the recession, I would like to suggest three changes to government.
First we need a national single payer system for health care. We have needed single payer system for years, because it is more efficient, 2 to 3 percent overhead for Medicare versus 15 to 30 percent for private insurance and 42 million uninsured. The recession will increase the number of uninsured. It makes no sense to for people who have lost their jobs have the added burden of paying for health insurance with or without a recession.
Second, the Federal Government should guarantee funding for the public schools. With property values plunging, and the states losing money, schools will need to cut their budgets, and educational quality will suffer. Education is critical to the success of our country, and funding needs to be stable.
The Federal Government should waive the state and local matching funds requirements for Federal programs. Many of the matching funds help people in need, and the states cannot afford to fund the match requirements anymore. Waiving the match would allow critical help to continue.
I’ve been hearing quite a bit of talk that the “liberal media” was much harder on John McCain than Barack Obama. This is a debatable point at best. Here is a Blad Blog posting from 7/28/2008 that disputes that.
Many conservative commentators (O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.) have recently launched tirades against the fairness doctrine, which mandates that opposing viewpoints be given equal time on radio and television. There is a fear that Obama will reintroduce the fairness doctrine.
Why are conservatives railing against the fairness doctrine? If there is a liberal bias in the media, then conservatives should welcome the reintroduction of the fairness doctrine since it would give them equal time to present their viewpoint. Their rants against the fairness doctrine are illogical unless there is a conservative media bias.
All voting problems should be reported. This includes challenges to eligibility and problems with electronic voting machines (EVMs). If you have problems, do the following (copied or modified from Brad Blog):
Call poll supervisors to observe the problem.
Fill out a problem report.
Refuse to vote on that machine.
Request that the machine be taken out of service.
Get a serial number of the machine if possible (may be difficult in many cases).
Tell other voters in line which machine it was and that they should NOT vote on that machine!
Report it to county/town election office.
Report it to the Secretary of State.
Call local reporters and tell them the story.
Report it by calling voter problem hotlines: 1-866-MYVOTE1 (1-866-698-6831), 1-866-OUR-VOTE (1-866-687-8683), and the CNN Voter Hotline at 877-GOCNN08 (1-877-462-6608).
Contact bloggers and Election Integrity websites such as VotersUnite.Org.
(Obviously, steps 3 through 6 are not necessary for challenges to eligibility.)
It is important that all problems are reported.
If you must use an EVM, do not vote a straight party ticket. There have been problems, and the machines do not record straight party tickets properly.
Here is what Oprah Winfrey said about her traumatic voting experience (video at this site):
“When I voted yesterday electronically, the first vote that you vote for on the ballot is the presidential candidate. It was my first time doing electronic, so I didn’t mark the X strong enough, or I held down too long. Because then when I went back to check it, it had not recorded my presidential vote.” She then simulated trouble breathing to show how upset she was. “It didn’t record my presidential vote.”
While Oprah was eventually able to cast her vote, there is no way to know if the EVM actually recorded her vote properly.
In an ad released on September 18, 2008, John McCain, a tax cut and spend Republican, resurrects the ancient tax and spend, he’s too liberal argument against Obama. As stated in this Salon article:
In an ad released Thursday, the McCain camp falls back on the old “tax-and-spend liberal” argument. “Obama and his liberal congressional allies want a massive government, billions in spending increases, wasteful pork,” the ad’s narrator says. “And we would pay — painful income taxes, skyrocketing taxes on life savings, electricity and home heating oil. Can your family afford that?”
The ad is less than truthful. Independent experts say Barack Obama’s plan would amount to a net tax cut for most people. The Tax Policy Center has found that Obama’s plan would “produce a tax cut for 81.3 percent of all households, and a cut for 95.5 percent of all households with children.”
The Republicans have no right to complain about spending increases. Federal spending and the Federal Debt have increased more during President’s George W. Bush’s tenure than at any other time in US history.
The National Debt is over $10 trillion ($10,000,000,000,000). This debt works out to about $32,787 for every person in the US. The proposed $700 billion banking bailout will add another $2,300. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 interest on the of debt is expected to be $431,270,863,309 (or $431 billion). The total Federal Budget is expected to be $2.9 trillion, interest on the debt is about 15% of the total. The top four Fiscal Year 2008 (estimated) expenditures are:
$709 billion: Health and Human Services
$656 billion: Social Security Administration
$607 billion: Department of Defense
$459 billion: Interest on debt
The recent economic crisis will cause our Federal Debt to grow even faster. We need to stop running deficits and pay down the debt. No more tax cut and spend.
Alan Grier of Comedy Central’s new Chocolate News show has a funny video about problems with electronic voting machines. As Brad Friedman (one of the best election integrity advocates) of the Brad Blog comments, “Not that we’d ever advocate the way Grier resolves the problem. (Though we admit it was quite satisfying to watch. Like pornography for election integrity geeks.)” Take about two minutes and watch this video.
There have been several reports of problems with electronic voting machines. The posting about David Earnhardt Election Integrity Filmmaker Sees Own Vote Flipped on ESS Touch-Screens in TN,” is a classic because Earnhardt produced the documentary “Uncounted: The New Math of American Elections.” His vote was flipped from Obama to McCain.
Old town Bluffton residents Nancy and Bill Roe were among the voters who said they noticed a problem. Nancy Roe said she selected all her choices on the screen at the booth Friday. She had attempted to cast a ballot for the general election, Bluffton mayor and council, and the various state referendum questions.
She said she clicked on all her choices — including two candidates for Bluffton Town Council.
But when she reviewed her selections before actually casting the ballot, she noticed that her two picks for the Bluffton Town Council did not register. Her husband had the same problem.
With the assistance of a Hilton Head employee, the two attempted to re-cast their ballots. Again, it didn’t work.
They resolved the problem by casting paper ballots for the council race, Nancy Roe said.
“I’m real political, so I checked the ballot,” she said. “If I had only given it a quick glance and punched ‘vote,’ I never would’ve known.”
Martinsburg man says machine switched Democratic vote to Republican 5 times
Roger Belozier, a veteran and retired postal worker from Berkeley County, experienced problems with electronic voting machines when he went to vote early in the Martinsburg courthouse.
“I reviewed my vote to make sure it was a straight Democratic ticket. But it switched my vote to Republican candidates five different times. I was able to cancel out the Republican votes.”
“But I am scratching my head. Why did the machine switch my votes five different times? I asked someone to come over and explain it to me,” Belozier said on Wednesday.
“I am concerned about a lot of people who might not notice or people who might be intimidated. They have to raise their hands and ask for some help.”
State After State, ES&S iVotronics Are Flipping Democratic Votes to Republican!
What You Can Do About It, And Where the Hell Are Those ‘Thousands’ of Obama/DNC Attorneys?…
This is just getting worse and worse. Now it’s happening in Texas. (And in MO, if you read to the end of the article). And the vaunted “thousands of attorneys” from the Obama campaign and the DNC are still nowhere to be found.
With every incident so far reported of touch-screen vote-flipping during early voting in this year’s general election — from county to county in WV and in Nashville, TN) — it’s been the ES&S iVotronic touch-screen machine that has failed, flipping votes from one candidate to another not chosen by the voter. In most every instances [see update below], it’s been an attempted Democratic vote, flipped to a Republican, or another party.
On October 16, 2008, I emailed my Senators and Representative the following:
Please answer the following health care questions:
1. How much do you pay for health insurance per month?
2. Is the above payment for you or your family?
3. Can you go to any doctor, hospital, or medical facility of your choosing?
4. What is your co-pay when you go to a doctor?
5. What is your co-pay for prescription drugs?
I am still waiting for an answer. Write or email your Senators and Congressperson and ask them the same questions.
Everybody should get the same health care benefits as Congress for the same price.
Some early W.Va. voters angry over switched votes
Jackson County touch-screens switched votes, 3 residents say
At least three early voters in Jackson County had a hard time voting for candidates they want to win.
Virginia Matheney and Calvin Thomas said touch-screen machines in the county clerk’s office in Ripley kept switching their votes from Democratic to Republican candidates.
“When I touched the screen for Barack Obama, the check mark moved from his box to the box indicating a vote for John McCain,” said Matheney, who lives in Kenna.
…
Calvin Thomas, 81, who retired from Kaiser Aluminum in Ravenswood in 1983 and now lives in Ripley, experienced the same problem.
“When I pushed Obama, it jumped to McCain. When I went down to governor’s office and punched [Gov. Joe] Manchin, it went to the other dude. When I went to Karen Facemyer [the incumbent Republican state senator], I pushed the Democrat, but it jumped again.
“The rest of them were OK, but the machine sent my votes for those top three offices from the Democrat to the Republican,” Thomas said.
…
“Jackson County is a Republican county. I am a registered Republican, but I have been voting Democrat since the 1990s.”
Thomas, who brought his daughter with him to the polls, said she had the same problem.
I was listening to a campaign speech by Sarah Palin. One of her common lines is “John McCain knows how to win a war.”
We need somebody who knows how to prevent war and will fight for peace.
“If you want to make peace, you don’t talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.”
— Moshe Dayan
Perhaps talking to our enemies, as Barack Obama advocates, will work. It will work better than not talking.
“There never was a good war or a bad peace.”
— Benjamin Franklin
“Time itself becomes subordinate to war. If only we could celebrate peace as our various ancestors celebrated war; if only we could glorify peace as those before us, thirsting for adventure, glorified war; if only our sages and scholars together could resolve to infuse peace with the same energy and inspiration that others have put into war.
Why is war such an easy option? Why does peace remain such an elusive goal? We know statesmen skilled at waging war, but where are those dedicated enough to humanity to find a way to avoid war?
Every nation has its prestigious military academies – or so few of them – that reach not only the virtues of peace but also the art of attaining it? I mean attaining and protecting it by means other than weapons, the tools of war. Why are we surprised whenever war recedes and yields to peace?”
— Elie Wiesel
Questions that must be asked during the 2008 campaign.
General questions:
How will you revive the economy?
How will you improve education and make college affordable for any qualified student?
How will you make health care affordable for all?
How will you rebuild the United States aging infrastructure?
What is your plan to reduce poverty in the US and the world?
How will you reduce the threat of terrorism?
Specific questions:
Health Care:
How much do you pay for health insurance per month?
Can you go to any doctor, hospital, or medical facility of your choosing?
When you go to a doctor what is your co-pay?
What is your co-pay for prescription drugs?
Explain why every US citizen does not get the same health care as the US Congress?
Would you be willing to give up your government supplied health insurance and find health insurance on the open market? Why or why not?
France spends 11% of its GDP on health care and insures all its citizens. The US spends 16% of its GDP on health care, 45% more than France, and fails to insure over 40 million of its citizens. Why not just have a government financed Medicare single payer system for all?
Senator McCain, you stated in the first Presidential debate: “I want to make sure we’re not handing the health care system over to the federal government…” Do you want to get rid of Medicare?
Senator McCain:
1. Could you even get health insurance under your plan given your history of melanoma?
2. Your high risk insurance pools seem to be nothing more than a government subsidy for the insurance companies that allows them to profit by cherry picking healthy individuals. How do you justify these subsidies for insurance companies?
Taxes and spending:
Some people argue that debt does not matter, yet the interest on the United States’ $10 trillion debt is the fourth largest expenditure by the federal government. We pay $451 billion to service our debt. The top four Fiscal Year 2008 (estimated) expenditures are:
$709 billion: Health and Human Services
$656 billion: Social Security Administration
$607 billion: Department of Defense
$459 billion: Interest on debt
Given our huge debt, now over 10 trillion dollars, and our deficit, explain how we can afford to cut taxes?
How do we prevent interest on the debt from becoming an even larger burden?
Senator McCain, in the first Presidential debate you said, “The first thing we have to do is get spending under control in Washington. It’s completely out of control. It’s gone — we have now presided over the largest increase in the size of government since the Great Society.”
1. What programs will you eliminate?
2. What programs will you cut and by how much?
Senator Obama, I put the above questions to you, What programs will you eliminate? What programs will you cut and by how much?
Senator McCain, one large factor contributing to our huge deficits and debt is the Iraq War, which has cost over $560 billion. If you truly support a war, you should be willing to pay for it. Are you willing to raise taxes to pay for the Iraq War? If you are not willing to finance the Iraq War, explain why we do not leave as soon as possible?
In June 2007, Warren Buffet had this comment on taxes:
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 percent on the $46 million he made last year (2006), without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 percent … Mr Buffett told his audience that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.
Explain why someone who makes $46 million pays only 17.7% of their income in taxes while somebody who makes $60 thousand pays 30%?
How will the tax laws be changed to remedy this situation?
The upper limit on FICA taxes from 2001 to 2008 has increased from $80,400 to $102,000, a 27% increase. Why do the regressive FICA taxes keep increasing?
The tax burden has shifted to individuals and away from corporations. In 1945, individual taxes provided 41% of receipts to the Federal Government, and corporate taxes provided 35%. In 2008, the estimates are that individual taxes will increase to 47% of the Federal Government’s receipts and corporate taxes will decrease to 12% of the Federal Government’s receipts. Given that corporate taxes are so low, does it make sense to cut corporate taxes further?
Iraq War:
Reports indicate that the Iraq War has been a recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda.
1. Given that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks, did the Iraq War make the US safer or reduce the threat of terrorism worldwide?
2. Other than achieving Iran’s foreign policy goals, increasing the debt of the United States, and killing over 4,000 US soldiers, what has the Iraq War accomplished?
Infrastructure:
The American Society of Civil Engineers average grade for infrastructure is D. How will you fund infrastructure improvements?
There has been more emphasis put on using renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. Our electrical grid cannot distribute this energy. What is your plan to upgrade the electrical grid so energy can be delivered where it is needed?
John McCain is losing and he feels it is necessary to avoid the issues and start attacking Barack Obama’s character. As reported in the Washington Post on Oct, 4, 2008:
Sen. John McCain and his Republican allies are readying a newly aggressive assault on Sen. Barack Obama’s character, believing that to win in November they must shift the conversation back to questions about the Democrat’s judgment, honesty and personal associations, several top Republicans said.
With just a month to go until Election Day, McCain’s team has decided that its emphasis on the senator’s biography as a war hero, experienced lawmaker and straight-talking maverick is insufficient to close a growing gap with Obama. The Arizonan’s campaign is also eager to move the conversation away from the economy, an issue that strongly favors Obama and has helped him to a lead in many recent polls.
The article concludes with comment from a McCain aid:
“We are looking for a very aggressive last 30 days,” said Greg Strimple, one of McCain’s top advisers. “We are looking forward to turning a page on this financial crisis and getting back to discussing Mr. Obama’s aggressively liberal record and how he will be too risky for Americans.”
Senator McCain, if you must resort to character assassination, then you are the one who is “too risky for Americans.” You “would rather lose a campaign than lose a war,” but you would rather win an election than discuss issues. We need a president who will confront the issues and find solutions.
Young voters at Drexel University in Philadelphia, Penn. have already been targeted, with students reporting that flyers have been posted around campus warning that undercover police will be at the polls on Election Day looking to make arrests.
The flyer reads like a friendly letter to fellow students relaying a warning from an “Obama supporter”: “He informed me that on the day of the election there will be undercover officers to execute warrants on those who come to vote based on the anticipated turnout,” writes the anonymous student in the letter which was later posted on the Drexel College Democrats website. “He advised me if I had any outstanding warrants or traffic offenses I should clear them up prior to voting.”
Political experts say the Drexel flyer is a classic example of voter suppression a practice that involves scaring, angering, or confusing voters so that they stay at home on Election Day.
The mailings sent to registered Democrats appear to be classic “caging” letters, marked as “Do Not Forward”, so that they will then be returned to the GOP if there is any problem with delivery. Those returned letters will likely then be used as a basis to challenge the legitimacy of those particular voters on Election Day….
Wikipedia gives a good description of voter caging:
According to an article by Dahlia Lithwick in Slate.com, caging has been used by members of the Republican Party of the USA as a form of voter suppression.[3] The use of direct mail caging techniques to target voters resulted in the application of the name to the political tactic. With one type of caging, a political party sends registered mail to addresses of registered voters. If the mail is returned as undeliverable – because, for example, the voter refuses to sign for it, the voter isn’t present for delivery, or the voter is homeless – the party uses that fact to challenge the registration, arguing that because the voter could not be reached at the address, the registration is fraudulent.[4] A political party challenges the validity of a voter’s registration; for the voter’s ballot to be counted, the voter must prove that their registration is valid.
Voters targeted by caging are often the most vulnerable: soldiers deployed overseas, those who are unfamiliar with their rights under the law, and those who cannot spare the time, effort, and expense of proving that their registration is valid.[5] On the day of the election, when the voter arrives at the poll and requests a ballot, an operative of the party challenges the validity of their registration. Ultimately, caging works by dissuading a voter from casting a ballot, or by ensuring that they cast a provisional ballot, which is less likely to be counted.
A search on “caging” on the Brad Blog, one of the best sites on voting issues, turns up over 100 entries on Republican Party voter caging.
The Republican Party is using dirty and illegal tricks to suppress voters and these dirty tricks are not getting the attention they deserve. Now McCain is “turning a page” away from the economy. It is McCain’s and the Republican’s Party judgement and honesty that are the issues, not Barack Obama’s.
I grudgingly conclude that something needs to be done to resolve the credit crisis. Like most people, I have been struggling to get to the truth. After reading several articles, I agree the economy could indeed freeze if businesses cannot get the short term loans they need to keep running.
The most reprehensible aspect of the credit crisis is that it is self-inflicted. As The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman stated on September 30, 2008:
I’ve been frightened for my country only a few times in my life: In 1962, when, even as a boy of 9, I followed the tension of the Cuban missile crisis; in 1963, with the assassination of J.F.K.; on Sept. 11, 2001; and on Monday, when the House Republicans brought down the bipartisan rescue package.
But this moment is the scariest of all for me because the previous three were all driven by real or potential attacks on the U.S. system by outsiders. This time, we are doing it to ourselves. This time, it’s our own failure to regulate our own financial system and to legislate the proper remedy that is doing us in.
Last night (Oct. 1, 2008), the Senate passed a $700 billion bailout bill. According this CNN article, the provisions of the bill are:
1. “The core is the Treasury’s proposal to let financial institutions sell to the government their troubled assets, mostly mortgage-related. … Treasury access to the $700 billion [is allowed] in stages, with $250 billion being made available immediately.”
2. There are a “number of provisions that supporters say would protect taxpayers. One would direct the president to propose a bill requiring the financial industry to reimburse taxpayers for any net losses from the program after five years. And the Treasury would be allowed to take ownership stakes in participating companies.”
3. “[A] stipulation that the Treasury set up an insurance program – to be funded with risk-based premiums paid by the industry – to guarantee companies’ troubled assets, including mortgage-backed securities, purchased before March 14, 2008.”
4. “It would place curbs on executive pay for companies selling assets or buying insurance from Uncle Sam. One provision: Any bonus or incentive paid to a senior executive officer for targets met would have to be repaid if it’s later proven that earnings or profit statements were inaccurate.”
5. “Two oversight committees. A Financial Stability Board would include the Federal Reserve chairman, the Securities and Exchange Commission chairman, the Federal Home Finance Agency director, the Housing and Urban Development secretary and the Treasury secretary.”
6. A temporary raise in “the FDIC insurance cap to $250,000 from $100,000. It says the FDIC may not charge member banks more to cover the increase in coverage. Instead, the bill allows the FDIC to borrow from the Treasury to cover any losses that might occur as a result of the higher insurance limit.”
7. “It would extend a number of renewable energy tax breaks for individuals and businesses, including a deduction for the purchase of solar panels.”
8. “The Senate bill would also continue a host of other expiring tax breaks. Among them: the research and development credit for businesses and the credit that allows individuals to deduct state and local sales taxes on their federal returns.”
9. The bill “includes relief for another year from the Alternative Minimum Tax, without which millions of Americans would have to pay the so-called “income tax for the wealthy.”
In the rush to pass this bill, I have grave concerns that other cheaper and better alternatives have not been explored. An interesting alternative solution has been proposed by Steven Wallman, who was an Securities and Exchange Commissioner under President Clinton. Here is summary of his take:
… Bottom line, it’s a proposal [the Senate’s proposal] that could work. But it’s not the best.
Instead, thinking folks might say why not solve the underlying problem – the cause – not the symptom? The root cause of the crisis, simply put, is homeowners’ mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures. When the mortgages backing securities suffer, those mortgage-backed securities suffer, and so do the banks holding them. But, if the government buys the mortgage-backed securities, that does nothing – absolutely nothing – to make the underlying mortgages more valuable or more likely to be paid, stabilize home prices or help homeowners in distress. It does nothing – absolutely nothing – to directly benefit the real economy.
But another proposal does. Use the $700 billion on the table and stabilize housing. Make that money (actually only a fraction would be needed) available to homeowners who live in their homes (not speculators). Here’s how: Offer any financial institution (or require it, although no financial institution in its right mind would refuse the offer anyway), that owns a mortgage of an owner-occupied home in distress, to provide that homeowner, in lieu of any penalties or foreclosure, a government guarantee of the current or missed payments under the mortgage. If the homeowner agrees to have the government take over the payments, the financial institution would inform the government, the government would make the payments, and the homeowner in exchange would sign a note agreeing to repay the government some years in the future (say, 10), with interest at the same rate currently required under the homeowner’s mortgage.
A few observations: First, the process is simple; it could be implemented without huge new government programs. It relies on regulated and monitored entities who know how to process these transactions, and there is no sudden time pressure to buy billions of dollars of anything over the course of a few weeks…
Wallman concludes his solution with:
On the downside, in the event the home never appreciates enough to pay off the government note (which will be paying off the primary mortgage), then the taxpayers may lose some value if the homeowner does not step up (but not a loss anything like what’s being proposed now) and there is a lot of time to allow the economy and its home-owning citizens to recover. The government will have years to determine if it wants to extend payment schedules, or take other actions to mitigate any issues.
Overall, this is a simple proposal that actually works. No one is bailed out, although the government accepts some risk. The system re-lubricates and the global economy is saved. Little money is actually needed to implement this, and if the economy recovers quickly enough with this proposal in place, home values may stabilize enough for conventional refinancing to work, so the government would actually pay very little. There is a win for everyone in this – if only you can get past the politics.
The other problem I have with the Senate’s proposal is its inclusion of unrelated issues. While I support tax breaks for renewable energy and relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax, these provisions do not belong in this bill and should be considered as separate bills.
The Senate’s proposal is packed with pork. We need a fast, thorough, and comprehensive discussion to find a solution that minimizes taxpayer risk. We need tough laws and regulations to prevent another self-inflicted wound. This wound is critical. The next one might be fatal.
Lobbying must be strictly controlled. Lobbyists are already required to register, but reporting requirements are lax. Transparency demands that reports be made readily available to the public on who is lobbying whom and the lobbyist position on legislation.
To provide full transparency both lobbyists and legislators (including the President and Vice-President) must report:
Time, date, attendees of meetings and the organizations represented at those meetings.
A brief summary of any discussions with legislators or their staffs.
What legislation is being supported or opposed.
These reports must be filed electronically each month and made available on the Internet.
Lobbying restrictions required are:
Lobbyist cannot donate money or provide any remuneration to legislators, their staff, or their campaigns. This means any gifts, parties, vacations, etc. are prohibited.
Lobbyists cannot write or assist in writing any legislation.
Legislators and members of their staff must wait five years after quitting before becoming a lobbyist.
One of the worst periods of leadership in the House of Representatives was during the tenure of Dennis Hastert (R), Speaker of the House, and Tom DeLay (R), House Majority Leader. During their tenure, from 2003 to 2005, lobbyists wrote most of the legislation produced by the House. Often there were only a few copies of bills available for review, no amendments were allowed, and the bills were voted on within a few hours of being released with minimal debate.
The revolving door of legislature to lobbyist must be stopped. Example: The Medicare Modernization Act* (MMA) passed in December, 2003 bans Medicare from negotiating discount drugs prices from pharmaceutical companies. Former Representative W. J. “Billy” Tauzin (R) is credited with adding this provision to the bill. Costs estimates for the MMA are about $1.2 trillion for 2006 through 2015. According to the Department of Veteran Affairs press release, “Families USA found that Medicare’s prices were much higher than those negotiated by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The median price difference for the top 20 drugs was 48.2%.” Over $578 billion could be saved over 10 years through negotiations with pharmaceutical companies. Rep. Tauzin left Congress in 2005 to become President and CEO of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PRMA), a trade group that supported the MMA. Tauzin’s salary of 2 million dollars per year was probably worth the extra $578 billion to PRMA.
Bribery disguised as lobbyists’ gifts must be eliminated. We must change lobbying laws to eliminate the overwhelming influence of special interests on our elected officials.
____
* Also called the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act
While attending MIT’s Emerging Technologies Conference in Cambridge today, I quickly found out that this country is still plagued with many of the same electronic ballot problems as it had in the presidential election of 2004, and now there seems to be a move afoot — as odd as it may sound — to get back to paper to ensure accuracy and legitimacy of election results.
California Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, joined three other e-voting experts at MIT’s Kresge Auditorium to address the public’s concern with the accuracy of today’s polling systems. Bowen, who took office in 2006, ordered a complete review of the state’s voting technology, which produced some surprising revelations as to problems many states, not just California, may face come November. Bowen said the review was in response to a “backlash” against electronic voting systems.
On September 25, the Brad Blog, which specializes in voting and election issues, had this funny ad by James Osgood, who is running for Secretary of State in Washington.
The ad is correct that touch-screen voting machines or direct recording electronic (DRE) voting machines can lose votes and that recounts are impossible.
To quote from the Brad Blog’s entry, “The Democratic candidate for Secretary of State in Washington state has released what he says will be the first of a series of campaign spots, satirizing the well-known “Mac v. PC” commercials, to highlight the differences between touch-screen voting machines and paper ballots.”
These commercials need to catch on fast so that people become aware of the problems with electronic voting machines.
I had added a link, “Use Paper Ballot,” so people can quickly check on why they should use paper ballots. Please pass this information on. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of using a paper ballot to make sure your vote is really counted!
In “A Taxing Situation Part 1,” I proved that the United States has a regressive tax system, and that all income must be taxed equally. In this posting I demonstrate the need to raise corporate taxes in order to achieve tax fairness. For individual tax payers FICA taxes on can be eliminated, and the lost revenue replaced by raising corporate income taxes. Tax fairness among corporations can be achieved by eliminating tax breaks or tax increases for specific industries or corporations.
Corporations are not paying their fair share in taxes. According to the Wall Street Journal (April 6, 2004): “More than 60% of corporations paid zero corporate tax between 1996 and 2000. Corporate tax revenue has declined from 200 billion in 2000 to 131.8 billion in 2003.” A more recent study determined that, “Two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005.”
The graph that follows, Graph 1, illustrates the disparity in percent between the amount that corporations and individuals contribute to total tax revenue received (receipts) by the Federal Government.
Years 2007 through 2012 are estimates
Graph 1*
As Graph 1 shows, corporate income taxes as Percent Composition of Receipts have gone down from about 35% in 1945 to about 12% in 2008 for a 66% decrease. Yet, during the same period, Percent Composition of Receipts for individual income taxes have gone up from 41% to 47% for a 15% increase. Table 1, “Summary of Changes in Taxes Paid,” puts this in perspective. As Table 1 illustrates, if both an individual and corporation paid $10,000 in income taxes in 1945, then the individual’s taxes increased to $11,500, while the corporation’s taxes decreased to $3,400 in 2008.
Table 1: Summary of Change in Taxes Paid
Year
% Composition, Individual Taxes
% Composition, Corporate Taxes
Individual Taxes
Corporate Taxes
1945
41%
35%
$10,000
$10,000
2008
47% (estimated)
12% (estimated)
$11,500
$3,400
Tax fairness can be achieved by eliminating FICA taxes on individuals and replacing the lost revenue by raising corporate income taxes. FICA taxes compose 35% of the Percent Composition of Receipts received by the Federal Government. Assuming an even split in FICA taxes between individuals and corporations, individuals now pay 64.5% of taxes while corporations now pay 29.5% of taxes. If we make corporations pay all FICA taxes, their percentage of total taxes received by the Federal Government would be 47%, the same as individuals. Table 2 summarizes this information.
Table 2: Percent of Composition of Receipts by Source
Entity
% Composition Income Tax of Federal Tax Receipts
% Composition Income Tax plus FICA of Federal Tax Receipts
Proposed % Composition Income Tax of Federal Tax Receipts
Individual
47%
64.5%
47%
Corporate
12%
29.5%
47%
For most individuals, abolishing FICA taxes for would result in a 7.65% increase in disposable income.
To achieve tax fairness among corporations eliminate tax breaks or tax increases earmarked for specific industries or corporations. One industry’s or corporation’s tax break is another’s tax increase. These tax breaks, at their worst, also allow some corporations to avoid paying taxes entirely. As for tax increases, due to high oil prices, oil companies are making record profits, and Congress is discussing adding a windfall profits tax. Congress wants to add an exception to the exception to make the tax code fair. Just eliminate the exceptions, and have a progressive corporate income tax system.
To summarize A Taxing Situation, Parts 1 and 2:
Income must be taxed the same regardless of income origin.
FICA taxes must be abolished for individuals.
Replace FICA taxes by increasing the corporate tax rate on a progressive scale.
Remove all special tax breaks or special tax increases so that corporations pay their fair share in taxes.
These changes will make the tax code simple, fair, and efficient.
__________
*Data derived from Historical Tables Budget Of The United States Government Fiscal Year 2009
The Federal Tax Code is regressive. Wages, capital gains, dividends, interest income, etc. are not taxed equally,
Illustrative example:
1. If your surname begins with A through B, you will pay income tax at a rate of 15%.
2. If your surname begins with C through Z, you will pay income tax plus an extra 7.65% in FICA (Social Security and Medicare) taxes. If you are self-employed, you will pay another 7.65% in FICA taxes for a total of 15.3%, however, the extra 7.65% is deductible from your Federal income taxes.
A through B are in love with this system while C through Z think it stinks.
Here is a report on what Warren Buffett, the Oracle of Omaha, had to say about the US tax system on June 28, 2007 (bold mine):
Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticized the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 percent on the $46 million he made last year (2006), without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 percent … Mr Buffett told his audience that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.
One common myth about the United States Federal tax system is that it is progressive. It is not progressive and will not be until we tax income equally regardless of how it is generated!
Another common myth is that taxes have not been raised under President George W. Bush. When people argue that taxes have not been increased, they neglect FICA taxes. In 2001 when President Bush took office, the maximum amount subject to FICA tax was $80,400. For 2008, the maximum amount is $102,000, a 27% increase. So taxes have increased on one the most regressive parts of our tax system, FICA taxes.
On October 31 of last year (2007), in an interview with Tom Brokaw, Buffett issued the following challenge regarding tax rates:
I’ll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes 400 who challenges– me that the average [tax rate] for the Forbes 400 will be less than the average [tax rate] of their receptionists. So, … I’ll give ’em an 800 number. They can call me. And the million will go to whichever charity the winner– designates.
So far, nobody has accepted the challenge.
We will have a truly progressive income tax system when wages, capital gains, dividends, interest income, etc. are taxed equally, and tax rates are set based only on income. Income origin must have no relationship to the tax rate.
I have been in the computer field for twenty-plus years, and direct recording electronic voting machines (DREs) scare me out of my wits. Normally, I don’t scare easily, yet I am scared enough to always use a paper ballot.
If you think DREs are safe, think again. DREs should not be used because:
1. There is no way to insure the choices on the screen match the recorded votes. Check out this Brad Blog article from Brad Friedman about a DREs switching votes. Friedman is an expert on voting issues, and I recommend checking out his blog regularly.
2. Sometimes the vote tallies are different in the same machine. Ed Felten, Professor of Computer Science and Public Affairs and Director of the Center for Information and Technology Policy at Princeton University, writes about inaccurate vote tallies.
3. Without a paper trail there is no way to verify or audit the vote totals, so a recount cannot be performed. The following article from VotersUnite.org show how inaccurate voting machines are and how the Federally mandated accuracy standards are being ignored. As the article concludes, “Voting system vendors are taking billions of tax-payer dollars and, in return, giving us inaccurate, inaccessible, unauditable, unreliable voting equipment that counts our votes in secret.”
4. There is no way to independently verify the software works properly because the vendors claim the software is proprietary and refuse to allow the source code to be checked.
5. DREs security is weak and the machines can be broken into or software can be modified to change the results. The videos on this link from UCSB illustrate the problems very well.
A Sept. 18, 2008 CNN article referring to DREs states “that 10 very vital swing states have significant voting problems that have not been addressed since the last election.” There is no way to insure your vote will be counted on a DRE! To guarantee accurate election results:
All votes must be recorded on ballots that can be read and counted by humans,
Ballots cast must be saved so a recount can be performed.
These guarantees can only be achieved with paper ballots. To be sure paper ballots, such as optically scanned ballots and punch cards, can still have problems. Smudging or light pencil or pen marks can cause optical scanners to have reading problems, although newer technology has greatly reduced these problems. Punch cards can have the notorious hanging chads, although this problem can be be minimized by having voters checking for and removing any hanging chads they find.
We need to ban DREs and resume using paper ballots for voting. Write your Senators and Congressperson and insist on paper ballots. It is the only way to insure fair and accurate elections. If you want do even more, download this toolkit from Black Box Voting.
This is Joe, and I want to welcome you to Talk Thought. Talk Thought will provide a forum for thoughtful discussion on issues of general interest. Talk Thought is not worried about being first on an issue. It is fine to think before responding. Talk Thought will not be the place to gossip about what celebrity is in rehab or to waste time with sound bites. Entries per week will vary.
Talk Thought encourages comments. The discussion must remain civil. If attacks become too personal, Talk Thought reserves the right to prevent people from commenting in the forum.
Talk Thought is a contribution to engaging talk and engaging thought. Enjoy!
