Archive | Politics RSS feed for this section

I’d be glad to identify myself to vote

19 May
Alexander Hamilton

Guess who?

 The other day I picked up my grandson at preschool. Even though I had done so several times before, I was asked to produce a photo ID. I was glad to do so. I produce that ID on many occasions; when I use a credit card (because I don’t sign the card), at a hospital along with the insurance cards, when cashing a check, when I board a plane and on and on.  Why do we ask for identification?  Because people cheat!

Notably when I vote I walk into the polling place, sign a book and vote. Nobody has any idea who I really am and I seriously doubt there is close scrutiny to match my signature with that of the previous year. 

There is no doubt that in past years in some parts of the Country voter registration and other requirements were used to prevent minorities from exercising their right to vote, but that was then and this is now. We are in a new world of identify theft, electronic identification and scams, and terrorist threats requiring all kinds of identification indignities.

Here is the argument against voter ID:

… it’s not hard to imagine how low-income citizens, African Americans, Latino Americans, college students, and elderly voters—groups the Brennan Center has identified as the most burdened by new voter laws—might get tangled up on voter day. The Center estimates that as many as 11 percent of eligible voters lack proper identification right now. For African Americans, it’s 25 percent—that’s 5.5 million voting-age black Americans who could get turned away at the polls for being undocumented and unphotographed.

How can I even address the above without being sarcastic?  The elderly, the elderly, college students? And because you are African-American or Latino you can’t obtain appropriate identification to vote? Why is it we insist on bringing everything down to the lowest common denominator?  If I were in one of these groups I would be insulted.  Wait, I am and I am insulted.

Rather than worrying about the modest requirement to produce identification when voting, we should be more concerned with basic qualifications required to vote. Of course there are no such requirements resulting in the morons on Jay-Walking who think the three branches of government are part of a tree having the same right to vote as anyone else. Even the Founding Fathers could not agree on who should have the right to vote limiting such privilege to men and property owners for a time.

I realize this goes against the grain of idealized liberty, but voting carries with it some responsibility. Is it unreasonable that those people who help determine our fate as a nation meet some basic requirements such as being fully literate, being able to pass the same test required for citizenship or demonstrate a fundamental understanding of something … almost anything? Even meeting such requirements won’t shield us from the uninformed and just plain wackos among us, but that is the price of a republic we must live with.

Suffrage Parade (LOC)

Suffrage Parade

Our high schools should have a course specifically designed for voter literacy (history, civics and economics) that each student is required to pass to gain the right to vote . . . and then when they do vote to provide identification. 

Is that too much to ask?

Oh, what are the three branches of government? How many Senators are there? Which branch of government writes tax laws? What is the purpose of a tariff?  Just checking. 

Related articles

Postal Service troubles and the liberal left (way left) view of reality.

17 May

The following is contained in a letter from Sen Bernard Sanders to the editor of the Wall Street Journal May 10th.

The Journal ignores the most important reason for the Postal Service’s financial troubles: a $5.5 billion annual mandate to pre-fund 75 years of future retiree health benefits in just 10 years. This onerous requirement, unmatched by any entity in the private sector or government, is responsible for more than 80% of the Postal Service’s debt. But for this prefunding mandate, the Postal Service would have posted a profit of $700 million from 2007-2010 and a $200 million profit in the first quarter of this fiscal year. The Senate-passed bill effectively resolves that issue. It also addresses the reality that the Postal Service overpaid $11 billion into the Federal Employees Retirement System.

Early retirement looks pretty good.

While this is technically correct in terms of accounting, it misses the point. We should be concerned why there is such a large liability, not how to manipulate or eliminate the funding which is exactly what got many states in trouble. Various bills in Congress want to waive the retiree medical funding requirement. How’s that for solving a problem? The liabilities exist even if they are not funded even as the USPS continues its financial decline.

The USPS lost $486 million in the period ending March 31, 2012 excluding the funding for retiree medical benefits alluded to by Senator Sanders.

Now consider these facts reported on Bloomberg Business Week:

  • The postal service wants to reduce payroll by 20%, but union contracts prohibit layoffs.
  • 80% of post offices lose money.
  • The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports the average hourly compensation for a postal worker is $41 vs $28 in the private sector.
  • 80% of the USPS budget goes to employee salaries and benefits compared with 43% for FedEx.
  • The last union contract provided for a 3.5% pay increase over the contract period plus seven uncapped cost of living increases.
  • Postal workers contribute 21% toward their health benefits versus 28% for most federal workers.
  • 79 percent of USPS total costs are the wages and benefits of its employees.

It short, it is the same old story of an unholy alliance between public unions and politicians. Even when postal service management attempts to solve it’s problems their actions are blocked by Members of Congress.

Related articles

Attacks on Obamacare are attacks on women’s health and well-being.

16 May

The title of this blog post is taken from a call out statement contained in a report prepared by the Center for American Progress as is the quote below. This type of reporting, propaganda or whatever you want to call it represents the worst of politics. The intent is to further polarize Americans by segmenting this group or that and playing on elements of their self-interest.

A quick reading of the first paragraph below and some would conclude that 45 million women first obtained these services because of Obamacare [note how suddenly the President's supporters have adopted the once pejorative "Obamacare."]. The reality is that the 45 million who had such service, most of whom would have had them in any case, have gotten them for “free” and the “free” part is supposed to be a good thing. There probably is no need, but I can’t help but remind readers these services are not “free” at all and such claims are further evidence of either the naivety of proponents or simply their overwhelming desire to promote their agenda despite the facts.

And of course, we can’t forget the insurance industry abuses against women. Never miss an opportunity to take a shot at the scapegoat of choice.

Denial of coverage for “gender-related pre-existing conditions”…  as opposed to non-gender-related conditions? Has anyone ever stopped to ask why all these people women, men or otherwise waited until they had pre-existing conditions to apply for insurance?  Has anyone asked why children were prevented from coverage for pre-existing conditions when it was universally possible to enroll a newborn without such restrictions provided such enrollment occurred within a certain period?  Employer plans have always required a new child or spouse to be enrolled within a specific number of days or to wait until the next open enrollment period. Is that unreasonable to protect against gaming the system and to protect the employer and fellow workers against adverse selection costs? Oh wait, it does require the exercise of personal responsibility and we all know that is a no, no.

Thanks to Obamacare, more than 45 million women have already taken advantage of recommended preventive services, including mammograms, pap smears, prenatal care, well-baby care, and well-child care with no cost sharing such as co-pays and deductibles. Starting this August, millions more will be able to obtain contraception, annual well-woman care (a visit with a gynecologist), screening for gestational diabetes, breastfeeding counseling and supplies, and screening for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV and the Human papillomavirus—again at no extra cost.

In addition, women will no longer encounter discrimination in the health insurance market in the form of lost maternity coverage, higher premiums due to their gender, and denials of coverage for gender-related pre-existing conditions. Indeed, close to 9 million women will gain coverage for maternity care in the individual market starting in 2014. And provisions in the new health law that protect everyone will especially benefit women, who utilize the health care system the most.  In short, Obamacare will increase health insurance coverage for women, lower their health care costs, and end the worst insurance industry abuses against them.

Look past the rhetoric on both sides of the health care debate, look at the unintended consequences of the promises made. Consider the promises of “free.”

Related articles

Bi-partisan cooperation is alive and well. Democrats and Republicans will meet to seek mutual cooperation

12 May

There is a ray of hope; politicians of both parties announced that later this year there will be a joint Republican-Democrat convention to seek consensus on the most pressing issues facing the country. The photo below shows the organizing committee hard at work.

20120510-093840.jpg

Left/Right where the heck is the center?

11 May

Long time Senator Richard Lugar was defeated in a recent primary in favor of a candidate supported by the Tea Party.  Rush Limbaugh is beside himself with joy.  Granted Sen. Lugar is 80 years old and has been on the job for thirty-five years and since I strongly favor term limits and not congressional careers, he should have retired long ago, but that’s not the point.

Lugar is known for taking a bi-partisan approach in dealing with issues. It seems to me that the last thing this Country needs now is a Congress with its members at the extreme ends of a tug if war with the American people on the abyss of the mud pit in the center of the rope.

I don’t think we are getting anywhere!

During the health care reform debate, Republicans moaned (and rightly so)  about the Democratic-controlled Congress doing pretty much what it wanted and ignoring or belittling any opposing ideas.  However, by throwing out middle of the roaders seeking compromise and results in favor of the far right and their singular point of view, aren’t Republicans hoping to do the same thing for which they attacked Democrats?  Just askin…

If all we have is the extreme left and the extreme right banging heads or worse if we elect a great majority of either party, we are going nowhere.  Well, in fact, we are going somewhere and I doubt we will like it when we arrive.

Running for re-election on an impressive record

6 May

I extracted the following quote from a Bloomberg.com column:

Obama needs to impress upon voters a narrative of his accomplishments, including overhauling health care, ending the war in Iraq, saving the auto industry and reviving the U.S. economy after the longest recession since the 1930s, said Patrick, a 55-year-old Democrat. He sometimes acts as a campaign stand-in for Obama.

Impressive uh? Who knows? The problem with all politicians is that they claim victory before all the results are in and ignore the consequences of their “accomplishments.” This isn’t unique to Obama by any means, it’s the nature of the political animal and the short-sighted receptivity of the voter targets of their rhetoric.

Will overhauling health care yield long term positive and affordable results? Has the war in Iraq truly ended? What price did we pay to “save” the auto industry and who knows if it was saved or is temporarily on life support? As for the economy you can make your own judgement.

Too bad we can’t see the real results of the “impressive accomplishments” politicians claim until long after they are out of office. There is one exception though, we all saw the results of trying to push home ownership as government policy and Barney Frank and a few friends are still in office. Who could argue that didn’t sound like an impressive accomplishment along the way?

Hey, let’s solve the Medicare and Social Security problem! What problem?

2 May

Let me see if I have this right, recently the Trustees reported that Social Security is in worse shape than projected last year and Medicare is no better with its costs escalating as well. Some on the left are still in denial about the shape of Social Security, perhaps that is why in 2011 and 2012 Congress saw fit to cut the Social Security payroll tax thereby increasing the federal debt and creating the impression there is no connection between what we pay and what we get. In addition, the Medicare Part B deductible was lowered in 2012 and the premium very modestly increased. We have a real problem … Gutless politicians and Americans who prefer to pay their AARP dues rather than face reality. Does anyone in Washington get it? Is this anyway to run a company, oh I forgot this isn’t a company, it’s the government. Medicare and Social Security update.

Student loan interest rates, focusing on the wrong problem . . . AGAIN

28 Apr

Tuition is how much?

We cry over student loans and the interest rates on those loans, but we are silent on the $50,000 plus annual cost of tuition at many of our colleges and universities. That’s just like focusing on insurance premiums and not the underlying cost of health care.

Then we have the politics of short-term memory. Read the e-mail below from the White House but when you finish consider that the reduction in interest rates and the increase taking effect July 1, 2012 were both contained in legislation passed by Congress in 2007, the first year of a Congress controlled by a great majority of Democrats, the same people now using the increase as an election tool aimed at young Americans.

Ah, the power of coincidences.

Good morning,

If Congress doesn’t act by July 1, interest rates will double for millions of students with subsidized Stafford loans.

There’s no reason this has to happen, but unfortunately some members of Congress are placing top priority on giving tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires instead of making smart investments in education that put the cost of higher education within reach for more Americans.

So this week, President Obama is getting out of Washington and travelling to college campuses across the country to get the word out to students and families.

Learn more about how this could affect students in your state and find out how you can help spread the word: http://www.whitehouse.gov/double

Getting a college degree shouldn’t be a luxury only a few Americans can afford, and it’s the sort of critical investment in our future we should support, not cut. Every hard working student deserves a fair shot at getting the skills and training they need to get a good job and compete in the 21st century economy.

At a time when so many middle class students are struggling to afford a college education, doubling their interest rates will only make it more difficult for them to get ahead.

Take a minute to learn more about this issue and help us spread the word:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/double

Thanks for your help,

David

David Plouffe
Senior Advisor to the President

Yesterday I heard the President say, “Stopping this interest increase is vital for an affordable education.” Note the word “affordable.” If it sounds familiar, it should as in “affordable” health care. However, there is one glaring flaw in the Presidents logic. He does not understand what makes something unaffordable, rather he thinks the result is the cause and unfortunately he drives his policies on that basis. You see, what makes a college education unaffordable is not the interest rate on the loan, but the size of the loan necessary to pay for an exorbitant tuition and related costs. What makes health care unaffordable is not health insurance premiums, but the underlying cost of the care driving the premiums.

Unless our political leaders understand the problem and solve for that problem, making something affordable is meaningless.

Related articles

How immune are you to political rhetoric? Do you want your fair share? The Buffett Rule, rules

27 Apr

Recently in relation to the ear catching phrase “Buffett Rule” the President said it would “strengthen our economy and create jobs.” That sounds like a good deal to me; squeeze the rich and create jobs. On the other hand I have this annoying habit, I have to ask, how?

How will adding $4.7 billion a year to government revenue strengthen the economy and create jobs? How will a few billion more do that when the trillions we have already spent have done little? I bet you have a question or two as well.

Keep in mind that the interest the government pays just on U.S. Savings Bond is over $500 million a month or $12 billion a year and that is a small fraction of the total interest paid on public debt.

There once was a man from Nantucket,
Who went to the well with his bucket.
The well was dry and he began to cry, but could not deny,
his trips had been more than a few.
We need a new rule to solve this mess, let me see, let me guess.
Oh, I have it, I’ll just take what I need from you!

A modest decrease in the national debt could generate interest expense savings far exceeding a new tax on a very small percentage of Americans freeing money to spend more productively.

That man from Nantucket dashed to a neighbor,
there is water in this well, I must have some,
you have more than me, that’s no fun.
He lowered his bucket as far as he dare, filling it up to the absolute top,
He leaned into the well and disappeared with a plop.
Need I say more, he got his fair share.

The next time you hear all that appealing rhetoric, ask “how”.

What has luck got to do with it? Millionaires should give us more of their winnings

20 Apr

The following is an excerpt from an opinion piece on Bloomberg.com April 13,2012

A Guide to the Class Warfare of Presidential Politics Lucky, Not Evil Thirty percent is a perfectly reasonable tax rate on incomes over a million — even if the recipients are sainted small businessfolk. Whether 30 percent constitutes class warfare depends on the rhetoric that goes with it. People who make more than a million a year are not evil. They’re just lucky. Obama’s rhetoric has largely avoided cheap shots that imply otherwise.

“Just lucky?”

If I win the lottery for an equivalent of a million dollars a year, I’m lucky . If a rich relative leaves me a million dollars in his will, I’m lucky.

If I start a business and make a lot of money, get a good education and a good job and make a lot of money, if I invent something truly innovative and make a million dollars I am not lucky I am rewarded for the effort and sacrifice that any of the above take to achieve.

Extreme success may be accompanied by an absence of misfortune, but so may failure or mediocre success.

The essence of the fallacy surrounding our current debate over “fair share” to be paid by the 1% is that they are classified as lucky as if the day after they graduated high school they started earning $1,000,000 or even $250,000 a year.

This is a big political game that assumes the bulk of American voters are losers with an axe to grind against the more successful among us. If pitting the wealthy against everyone else had any serious impact on the deficit because the wealthy really didn’t pay their fair share, that would be one thing, but that is not even true. The truth is that the only reason high income earners pay a lower percentage in taxes is because the bulk of their income is in dividends and capital gains and taxed at 15% as is the case for every American, that and because they contribute generously to charity.

In the year 2000, families earning $20,000 or less gave an average of about $450 to charity, while families earning more than $100,000 gave away an average of a bit more than $3,000. The top 10 percent of households in income are responsible for at least a quarter of all the money contributed to charity, and households with total wealth exceeding $1 million give about half of all charitable donations. The American rich are generous, on average (interestingly, lower income people tend to give a greater percentage of their income to charity. This is thought to mostly be because of strong religious affiliations promoting giving). It is also true that lower income Americans spend a greater percentage of their income on lottery tickets than do the wealthy.

There is a great deal of unfairness though. Take for example the widow on a fixed income who can’t afford to stay in her family home of forty years because of high property taxes caused by irresponsible spending at state and local levels. Or how about the lucky gal who wins a big lottery, pays 35% in federal taxes dies the next year and her children get to pay another 35% in estate taxes. What about all the special benefits, tax breaks, and discounts for seniors based on income, but ignoring net worth or total assets? Is it “fair” that struggling young couples have their payroll taxes increased (and they will) to pay for the benefits for the boomers who in all too many cases did not plan for their own futures? Fair is fair.

So what say ye? Do you think that high income people should pay more in taxes? Do you think they are not paying their fair share? How do you define wealthy?

Dividing America; the new normal in politics

16 Apr

Just when I think our esteemed White House can’t lower its standards any further, I am proved wrong. I recently received an e-mail with this message linked to a calculator so I can see how many millionaires paid a lower effective tax rate than I did.

What’s your Buffett number?

Just enter a few pieces of information about your taxes, and see how many millionaires pay a lower effective tax rate than you.

Frankly, I don’t care. What I do care about are the taxes I paid including several thousand dollars in alternative minimum tax. I also care about politicians who attempt to drive a wedge between Americans for their own gain. Perhaps the White House should add a calculator showing how much money these millionaires gave to charity, an activity far more productive than throwing more money down the bureaucratic abyss.

With the White House, the ARRP and Obama playing the “woe is me, somebody has more than I do and I’m entitled to more” card Americans should be insulted over the low esteem in which they are held by our leaders and policymakers.

“Hey, his piece is bigger than mine!” “I want to be first” “Mommy, that’s not fair.

All these attempts at diversion with no impact on our real problems; do you feel like a puppet? Should I be upset over the millions of Americans who pay a lower effective tax rate than I do?

Promises, promises-so you still think there can be a credible relationship between politicians and public employee unions

14 Apr

The article from Bloomberg.com says it all.

To one degree or another many states are in the same boat caused by politicians who are dependent on union support to get elected acquiescing to unreasonable union demands and then not providing the funding to meet the obligations they created. And, as this article points out, many times the public pensions use unreasonable assumptions to mask the real level of unfunded liabilities.

In the final analysis it is the taxpayers, teachers, firefighters, police officers and other government workers who will get screwed.

Negotiating a contract with two parties who do not understand their responsibilities to the people paying their salaries and have no fear of accountability does not work … but we all let it happen and simply moan about taxes.

The real reason contraception is “free” under the Affordable Care Act

6 Apr

Most people, including me, think mandated coverage of contraception was a result of the Affordable Care Act and the Institute of Medicine that is charged with making recommendations related to preventive services that should be covered at 100% by health insurance.

Recently, I found a copy of the website my.Barackobama.com dated November 3, 2008.

Here is what it says:

Barack Obama is an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improved awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.

Think Contraception Logo

So you see, the full and “free” coverage of contraception was a long-planned goal and likely had little to do with the IOM recommendation, but more with an ideology that it is the federal government’s responsibility to solve just about any problem American’s face. Here we also see the claim of “insurance discrimination,” key rhetoric in promoting the idea that virtually every health care related expense should be covered and with minimal or no cost.

Once the Affordable Care Act was passed including discretion for the Secretary of HHS to designate preventive services, there was no need for separate legislation.

The President’s perspective may also have something to do with the fact that 72% of black American children are born to unwed mothers and many of those to teenagers. That indeed is a problem for the individuals involved and for society. It is a social crisis, a moral crisis and one that will not be solved by making the pill “free” especially given that many of the people involved already have access to contraception at minimal or no cost.

Related articles

The Obama-Biden promises for health care reform – what happened? Do you still think you can have it all and not pay for it?

5 Apr

President Barack Obama walking with Vice Presi...

 For some reason back in 2008 I printed out the entire Obama-Biden website containing their positions and proposals.  Scanning the health care section recently I found some interesting statements:

“The Obama plan will lower health care costs by $2,500 for a typical family by investing in health information technology, prevention and care coordination.”

“Reduce Costs and Save a Typical American Family up to $2,500.”

“Under the plan, if you like your current health insurance, nothing changes, except your costs will go down by as much as $2,500 per year.”

Which is it, “by”, “up to” or “as much as?”  No matter, there is nothing in the Affordable Care Act that saves the typical family $2,500.  You can stretch this definition and say that the subsidies within the exchanges will save some families money and that’s true, but it does not lower health care costs and certainly not through information technology, prevention and care coordination.

“On health care reform, the American people are too often offered two extremes – government-run health care with higher taxes or letting the insurance companies operate without rules. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe both of these extremes are wrong, and that’s why they’ve proposed a plan that strengthens employer coverage, makes insurance companies accountable and ensures patient choice of doctor and care without government interference.”

Interesting choice of words, the “extreme” of government-run health care, is “wrong.”

“Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums.”

The “fair and stable premiums” will reflect the additional cost of removing all underwriting for insurance coverage.

“Barack Obama will pay for his $50 – $65 billion health care reform effort by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for Americans earning more than $250,000 per year and retaining the estate tax at its 2009 level.”

LOL . . .

the President’s most recent budget alone contains an additional $111 billion to cover the cost of subsidies for Americans enrolled in the health insurance exchanges.

Of course, rhetoric and  promises that don’t match reality are not unique to Obama-Biden or to Democrats for that matter.  All politicians pander to the wants and fears of the voters, but on occasion it would be nice if the voters held them accountable.

President Obama needs to be President and not Supreme Court critic

4 Apr

The President Warns the Supreme Court

Our President is a smart man; he is a lawyer and a former law professor. He should know how our government works and why there are three distinct branches with checks and balances.

Official photographic portrait of US President...

Apparently he does not know or care about these things, perhaps he missed Civics class while community organizing. He criticizes the Supreme Count as “an unelected group of people.”

Whatever the reason for his behavior, I find it very disturbing.

Most recently he called on the Supreme Court not to be an activist court and strike down the health care law.  He said he is confident the Court will not legislate from the bench. He claims the law “passed with a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

Notwithstanding he is distorting the facts; the law passed 219-212 (51%) in the House and with 60 votes in the Senate and with virtually no votes from outside his party, his chastising the Supreme Court as he did in the campaign contribution ruling is inappropriate at best and extremely irresponsible.

You can tell the fundamental character of a person by what they say and how they act. In this case I believe we should have concerns. His priorities seem to be mostly focused on getting his way any  way he can.

The issue before the Supreme Court is whether or not a law passed by Congress and signed by the President is constitutional.  Twenty-six of our states don’t think it is. It does not matter if the law is benefiting many people, it does not matter that billions have already been spent implementing it, what matters is the integrity of the Constitution of the United States.  It is up to the judicial branch of our government to make that determination, not a politician running for reelection.

We can only hope that the Supreme Court judges exercise their best and honest judgment. However, regardless of their decision, it will be the law of the land and if the people and Congress don’t like the decision, they are free to pass a new law that constitutionally accomplishes their goals.

A true leader may be disappointed in a court ruling as have some past Presidents, but his reaction should be to support the process and the constitution and let his comments be private.  It is not the job of the President to lobby the Supreme Court or to chastise it.

If we were to deviate from the rule of law and the interpretation of the Constitution, there would be no Affordable Care Act because the majority of Americans still oppose the law.  In a recent CNN/ORC International poll forty-three percent of Americans say they favor the Affordable Care Act.

Forty-three percent of Americans want some parts of the law overturned and 30 percent want the entire law overturned.  When it comes to the individual mandate to carry health insurance, a Kaiser survey found no group (Democrats, Republicans or Independents) where a majority of people looked favorably on the mandate.

Perhaps the President should focus on this “strong majority,” stronger than the majority that enacted the law.

← Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 371 other followers