Keith Olbermann, Lawrence O'Donnell and other nonRepublican mouthpieces rankle when they hear Repubs use the word Democrat when the correct word is Democratic, e.g. Barack Obama is a Democrat president instead of the correct Barack Obama is a Democratic president.
I say, let 'em go, Keith, Lawrence and all you other nonRepub broadcast show hosts and pundits. It simply makes them sound ignorant.
If you can't let it go, then when you correct or say "Democratic", at least follow that by pointing out that when people use the wrong word/term, especially repeatedly, they sound ignorant.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Economy-Tanking Tax Cuts
Minnesota Congressional Rep. Michele Bachmann officially declared her presidential candidacy yesterday and vowed to get the U.S. economy going again by cutting corporate taxes.
That raises the question I ask -- and wish more media voice pieces would also ask -- every time I hear Bachmann, Speaker of the House John Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and so many others who call themselves fiscal conservatives say that cutting taxes is the way to economicy prosperity in this country.
My question is, if cutting taxes brings economic prosperity, why did the country's economy tank after Bush II cut taxes in 2001 and again in 2003?
A follow-up question is when, in U.S. history, did the economy boom as a result of tax cuts?
I find lots of assertions and postulations in Internet searches theorizing that cutting taxes puts more money in consumers' hands to spend on goods and services, thus increasing tax revenues, but nothing indicating when that has actually occurred to the point that it boosted the economy.
Conversely, we have a very real and painful recent example of when and how cutting taxes -- especially while at the same time waging two horrendously expensive, yet unfunded, wars and a horrendously expensive, unfunded Medicare drug benefit -- plunged the nation into the worst recession since it dug its way out of the Great Depression by, not cutting taxes, but with government spending that put Americans back to work.
Evidence abounds in other countries' tax policies. Which country in the developed war suffered the least in the recent and ongoing global financial crisis? Germany, which is a high-tax country. Which countries are suffering the most? How about Greece, whose population is renowned for not paying taxes.
Contrarians assert that World War II should be credited as the real reason America recovered from the Depression. That no doubt contributed. But why? Government spending and imposing taxes to cover, at least in part, the cost of that war.
So why didn't the Bush-era tax cuts infuse the economy with lots of revenue thanks to consumers having more money to spend? One reason is that people didn't spend the money they no longer sent to Uncle Sam. They paid off credit debt and put it into savings. The other is that the vast majority of the cuts went to those in the highest income bracket, who also didn't spend it on consumer goods -- unless you count yachts (a yacht manufacturer in Wisconsin after years of benefiting from Bush tax cuts closed down for a while in 2009 because business dried up and got millions in government assistance a couple of months ago) -- but invested it in Wall Street.
Americans in lower income brackets are not only still waiting for that to trickle down, but are shouldering the tax burden that has been -- and increasingly continues to be -- shifted from the wealthy and big business to the rest of us.
That raises the question I ask -- and wish more media voice pieces would also ask -- every time I hear Bachmann, Speaker of the House John Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and so many others who call themselves fiscal conservatives say that cutting taxes is the way to economicy prosperity in this country.
My question is, if cutting taxes brings economic prosperity, why did the country's economy tank after Bush II cut taxes in 2001 and again in 2003?
A follow-up question is when, in U.S. history, did the economy boom as a result of tax cuts?
I find lots of assertions and postulations in Internet searches theorizing that cutting taxes puts more money in consumers' hands to spend on goods and services, thus increasing tax revenues, but nothing indicating when that has actually occurred to the point that it boosted the economy.
Conversely, we have a very real and painful recent example of when and how cutting taxes -- especially while at the same time waging two horrendously expensive, yet unfunded, wars and a horrendously expensive, unfunded Medicare drug benefit -- plunged the nation into the worst recession since it dug its way out of the Great Depression by, not cutting taxes, but with government spending that put Americans back to work.
Evidence abounds in other countries' tax policies. Which country in the developed war suffered the least in the recent and ongoing global financial crisis? Germany, which is a high-tax country. Which countries are suffering the most? How about Greece, whose population is renowned for not paying taxes.
Contrarians assert that World War II should be credited as the real reason America recovered from the Depression. That no doubt contributed. But why? Government spending and imposing taxes to cover, at least in part, the cost of that war.
So why didn't the Bush-era tax cuts infuse the economy with lots of revenue thanks to consumers having more money to spend? One reason is that people didn't spend the money they no longer sent to Uncle Sam. They paid off credit debt and put it into savings. The other is that the vast majority of the cuts went to those in the highest income bracket, who also didn't spend it on consumer goods -- unless you count yachts (a yacht manufacturer in Wisconsin after years of benefiting from Bush tax cuts closed down for a while in 2009 because business dried up and got millions in government assistance a couple of months ago) -- but invested it in Wall Street.
Americans in lower income brackets are not only still waiting for that to trickle down, but are shouldering the tax burden that has been -- and increasingly continues to be -- shifted from the wealthy and big business to the rest of us.
Monday, June 27, 2011
The Real "Me" and Gov't Handouts
Wisconsin resident Daniel Vitek complained in a letter to Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that the country "is being turned into a socialist state with the people and weak-kneed political hacks giving into the big labor unions demanding more and more handouts."
The country Mr. Vitek grew up, he wrote, "put self reliance and hard work first. ... Today it's all 'me' and handouts from big government."
There was more, but I'll stick with these excerpts.
(1) The handouts I'm aware of that union have demanded were for the most part benefits tradeoffs companies, pleading poverty, offered in lieu of payraises. Mr. Vitek, as a Wisconsin resident and presumptive newspaper reader, should know that those benefits are being rolled back, wholesale. Not only are union members' benefits shrinking, the politicians currently running this state have essentially stripped public-worker unions of collective bargaining rights and, thus, greatly diminished the union-initiated worker protections, higher pay and better workplace conditions that benefited all working Americans, whether union members or not. The decimation of private-sector unions began more than 30 years ago. Thus, those "big labor unions" Mr. Vitek so dispises and villifies are about as yesteryear as the cold war's communist scourge.
(2) The 'handouts' Mr. Vitek so resents laid the foundation for better pay, working conditions, and safer working conditions that resulted in better pay and safer working conditions for all Americans, including Mr. Vitek.
(3) The roads and highways Mr. Vitek drives on, the clean air, safe water and food supply he benefits from and so much more that contribute to Mr. Vitek's healthier life and good standard of living -- and the Social Security and Medicare I would bet anything Mr. Vitek receives -- are all parts of a social-sharing system that help stitch our country together. So too are the law enforcement, legal system, fire protection and myriad other "socialistic" benefits Mr. Vitek receives, thanks to his membershp in this democracy. That memberhip does have dues. They're called taxes.
(4) I'm flummoxed that Mr. Vitek is so resentful of self-reliant, hard-working Americans who band together to pressure employers to provide living wages for their labor, yet has no problem with the government's socialistic policies of this giving handouts the size of Jupiter to corporations that are pulling in record profits.
(5) The stunner though, was Mr. Vitek equating union actions with today's "all about me" narcissism. What could be more narcissistic and "all me" than American-style capitalism?
The country Mr. Vitek grew up, he wrote, "put self reliance and hard work first. ... Today it's all 'me' and handouts from big government."
There was more, but I'll stick with these excerpts.
(1) The handouts I'm aware of that union have demanded were for the most part benefits tradeoffs companies, pleading poverty, offered in lieu of payraises. Mr. Vitek, as a Wisconsin resident and presumptive newspaper reader, should know that those benefits are being rolled back, wholesale. Not only are union members' benefits shrinking, the politicians currently running this state have essentially stripped public-worker unions of collective bargaining rights and, thus, greatly diminished the union-initiated worker protections, higher pay and better workplace conditions that benefited all working Americans, whether union members or not. The decimation of private-sector unions began more than 30 years ago. Thus, those "big labor unions" Mr. Vitek so dispises and villifies are about as yesteryear as the cold war's communist scourge.
(2) The 'handouts' Mr. Vitek so resents laid the foundation for better pay, working conditions, and safer working conditions that resulted in better pay and safer working conditions for all Americans, including Mr. Vitek.
(3) The roads and highways Mr. Vitek drives on, the clean air, safe water and food supply he benefits from and so much more that contribute to Mr. Vitek's healthier life and good standard of living -- and the Social Security and Medicare I would bet anything Mr. Vitek receives -- are all parts of a social-sharing system that help stitch our country together. So too are the law enforcement, legal system, fire protection and myriad other "socialistic" benefits Mr. Vitek receives, thanks to his membershp in this democracy. That memberhip does have dues. They're called taxes.
(4) I'm flummoxed that Mr. Vitek is so resentful of self-reliant, hard-working Americans who band together to pressure employers to provide living wages for their labor, yet has no problem with the government's socialistic policies of this giving handouts the size of Jupiter to corporations that are pulling in record profits.
(5) The stunner though, was Mr. Vitek equating union actions with today's "all about me" narcissism. What could be more narcissistic and "all me" than American-style capitalism?
No Level Playing Field Allowed
The U.S. Supreme Court on 5-4 ruling today squashed a significant provision of Arizona's public campaign-finance law, saying the state's attempt to try to level the playing field for candidates for public office was unconstitutional.
The SCOTUS Supreme 5 seems to have confused "free speech" with "money talks." Or worse, maybe they haven't.
The SCOTUS Supreme 5 seems to have confused "free speech" with "money talks." Or worse, maybe they haven't.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
What Would Ghandi Say?
New York Times columnist Charles Blow posts the link to his columns on Facebook the day before publication and invites his FB Friends to let him know what they think. So yesterday I read today's column, "Them That's Not Shall Lose" @ http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06
Among the comments he got was this one:
"Mahatma Ghandi: 'A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.'"
That brought to mind the biblical passage in Matthew in which Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me."
Another commentor was thinking along the same lines. She wrote:
"For the religious politicians see Matthew 25:41-46: 'Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, ...I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'"
And that brought to mind the Congressional debt-ceiling impass in which, from what I understand, Republicans are resolute about not ending government subsidies to highly profitable oil companies which benefit their obscenely rich executives, yet are demanding cuts in government assistance to "the least" among us.
Charles Blow included this quote in his column:
“Anyone who has ever struggled with poverty knows how extremely expensive it is to be poor.”
One of his FB Friends observed. "...which is true, again, in like 10 different ways - literally, every thing costs more - interest is higher, offers for loans are worse and more costly and you money isn't at work on the stock market while you are at work making more - a hundred dollars for a poor person equals 10,000 in real life - and it REALLY does - it is EXTREMELY expensive to be poor - extremely. say it again and again - tell it over and over ..."
That's true not only for the individual who is poor, it is true for a nation that grows poverty, that increasingly widens the gap between its rich and poor citizens, that reduces the buying power of its middle- and low-income groups, which the U.S. is doing a lot of these days.
It costs our country far more in financial and human capital and in national potential to not take care of its poor than it would if we did.
That just makes good truly conservative sense.
Among the comments he got was this one:
"Mahatma Ghandi: 'A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.'"
That brought to mind the biblical passage in Matthew in which Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me."
Another commentor was thinking along the same lines. She wrote:
"For the religious politicians see Matthew 25:41-46: 'Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, ...I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'"
And that brought to mind the Congressional debt-ceiling impass in which, from what I understand, Republicans are resolute about not ending government subsidies to highly profitable oil companies which benefit their obscenely rich executives, yet are demanding cuts in government assistance to "the least" among us.
Charles Blow included this quote in his column:
“Anyone who has ever struggled with poverty knows how extremely expensive it is to be poor.”
One of his FB Friends observed. "...which is true, again, in like 10 different ways - literally, every thing costs more - interest is higher, offers for loans are worse and more costly and you money isn't at work on the stock market while you are at work making more - a hundred dollars for a poor person equals 10,000 in real life - and it REALLY does - it is EXTREMELY expensive to be poor - extremely. say it again and again - tell it over and over ..."
That's true not only for the individual who is poor, it is true for a nation that grows poverty, that increasingly widens the gap between its rich and poor citizens, that reduces the buying power of its middle- and low-income groups, which the U.S. is doing a lot of these days.
It costs our country far more in financial and human capital and in national potential to not take care of its poor than it would if we did.
That just makes good truly conservative sense.
"For the religious politicians see Matthew 25:41-46: 'Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, ...I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'"
Sunday, June 19, 2011
The Real Downward Spiral
GOP presidential hopeful T.PAWlenty (what he reportedly prefers to be known as) railed at the RightOnline convention in Minneapolis yesterday that it's imperative to elect more regressives (my word, not his) to high office and "end the downward spiral this country's in."
But, wait! I shot back (granted it was only at my NPR-tuned radio). Wasn't it the regressive policies of the previous president and fellow corporate/megawealthy-friendly elected officials that plunged this country off the cliff in the first place?
This is but one factor that is viewed through what seems like opposite sides of the looking glass and result in such diametrically different ideas about conditions and policies that form our society and increasingly polarizes the country.
Take the impact labor unions have had on the national economy, for example.
One view is that unions, not corporations, have been the tide that has lifted all boats in this country. Working and workplace conditions, which unions have fought to improve, including job-safety regulations, child-labor restrictions and work-day and work-week limitations eventually became the law of the land, thus benefitting the nation's entire workforce, non-unionized as well as unionized. All workers in the U.S. benefitted from the higher wages, pension contributions and healthcare benefits unions won for their workers.
Then along came globalization and corporate operations and jobs, particularly manufacturing operations and jobs that had formed the backbone of what is viewed as America's middle class, evaporated from American cities and emerged in other countries, countries where the manufacturers didn't have to be bothered with such nettlesome and expensive gnats as healthcare and retirement benefits and livable, by U.S. standards, wages.
This view sees unions as villains. By demanding ever-higher wages and ever-more costly benefits for their workers, unions priced America out of the employment market and drove employers overseas to labor markets where workers are happy to work for a fraction of what companies have to pay Americans and who don't demand or even expect retirement and healthcare benefits.
In the other view, corporations are the villians. It is corporate greed that sends corporations to labor markets when they can pay wages at a fraction of what they would have to pay U.S. workers. That enables corporations to pile up ever-greater company profits, enrich their investors with ever-larger dividends and, in the appallingly incestuous corporate board-of-directors system, reward their top executives more and more obscenely bloated compensation packages and bonuses.
Which view is correct? Perception will probably always depend on which side of the looking glass the viewer is looking at. But here is a reality that, so far as I'm concerned, blows a hole in T.PAWlenty's rant.
For corporations to pay pennies-on-the-dollar wages for goods -- and now even services -- they produce, they are not only driving down their own costs and, thus, increase their profits, which are at record highs -- they are driving down the standard of living in the United States.
The downward spiral this country is in is a correction to the global workforce employers have accessed. As more Americans have less access to what used to be good-paying manufacturing jobs, they have less income to spend on the goods and services employers are providing via foreign workers.
Spending less on goods and services in this country results in less revenue for public services. Just think about the myriad ways people are finding to cut corners: Don't eat out as much, put off major and even minor purchases, take 'staycations' because they can't afford the travel, accommodation and entertainment expenses traditional vacations involve. Not only are the travel, restaurant, hotel and amusement park industries making less, so too are taxes associated with such expenditures drying up.
So now in addition to Americans being paid less and finding fewer jobs in the private sector, they're being laid off in the public-service sector, which results in their having less income to spend on goods and services.
As a result, instead of "keeping up with the Jones", Americans are being forced into "moving down with the Chans."
That, T.PAWlenty, is a downward spiral.
But, wait! I shot back (granted it was only at my NPR-tuned radio). Wasn't it the regressive policies of the previous president and fellow corporate/megawealthy-friendly elected officials that plunged this country off the cliff in the first place?
This is but one factor that is viewed through what seems like opposite sides of the looking glass and result in such diametrically different ideas about conditions and policies that form our society and increasingly polarizes the country.
Take the impact labor unions have had on the national economy, for example.
One view is that unions, not corporations, have been the tide that has lifted all boats in this country. Working and workplace conditions, which unions have fought to improve, including job-safety regulations, child-labor restrictions and work-day and work-week limitations eventually became the law of the land, thus benefitting the nation's entire workforce, non-unionized as well as unionized. All workers in the U.S. benefitted from the higher wages, pension contributions and healthcare benefits unions won for their workers.
Then along came globalization and corporate operations and jobs, particularly manufacturing operations and jobs that had formed the backbone of what is viewed as America's middle class, evaporated from American cities and emerged in other countries, countries where the manufacturers didn't have to be bothered with such nettlesome and expensive gnats as healthcare and retirement benefits and livable, by U.S. standards, wages.
This view sees unions as villains. By demanding ever-higher wages and ever-more costly benefits for their workers, unions priced America out of the employment market and drove employers overseas to labor markets where workers are happy to work for a fraction of what companies have to pay Americans and who don't demand or even expect retirement and healthcare benefits.
In the other view, corporations are the villians. It is corporate greed that sends corporations to labor markets when they can pay wages at a fraction of what they would have to pay U.S. workers. That enables corporations to pile up ever-greater company profits, enrich their investors with ever-larger dividends and, in the appallingly incestuous corporate board-of-directors system, reward their top executives more and more obscenely bloated compensation packages and bonuses.
Which view is correct? Perception will probably always depend on which side of the looking glass the viewer is looking at. But here is a reality that, so far as I'm concerned, blows a hole in T.PAWlenty's rant.
For corporations to pay pennies-on-the-dollar wages for goods -- and now even services -- they produce, they are not only driving down their own costs and, thus, increase their profits, which are at record highs -- they are driving down the standard of living in the United States.
The downward spiral this country is in is a correction to the global workforce employers have accessed. As more Americans have less access to what used to be good-paying manufacturing jobs, they have less income to spend on the goods and services employers are providing via foreign workers.
Spending less on goods and services in this country results in less revenue for public services. Just think about the myriad ways people are finding to cut corners: Don't eat out as much, put off major and even minor purchases, take 'staycations' because they can't afford the travel, accommodation and entertainment expenses traditional vacations involve. Not only are the travel, restaurant, hotel and amusement park industries making less, so too are taxes associated with such expenditures drying up.
So now in addition to Americans being paid less and finding fewer jobs in the private sector, they're being laid off in the public-service sector, which results in their having less income to spend on goods and services.
As a result, instead of "keeping up with the Jones", Americans are being forced into "moving down with the Chans."
That, T.PAWlenty, is a downward spiral.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Norquist Appropriates (R)s' Fealty
I keep hearing and reading about a pledge a private citizen named Grover Norquist who has no official position in government at any level forcing Republicans elected to Congress to sign a pledge to not raise any taxes of any kind or anything that smells like a tax without an equal amount being cut in some other area.
My question is what are these elected officials doing commiting fealty to an individual who has no constitutional or legal authority over them when they have taken an oath to their constituents to represent them and act in their best interest?
My question is what are these elected officials doing commiting fealty to an individual who has no constitutional or legal authority over them when they have taken an oath to their constituents to represent them and act in their best interest?
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Wisconsin High Court Enables Legislative Tyranny
What's the point of passing a law that requires public entities to give a defined period of advance notice of a public meeting -- but exempts the entity that makes the law? That's what four members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court said yesterday is legal and constitutional.
Wisconsin's open meeting law requires 24-hour notice. The Republican-dominated state Assembly gave less than two hours notice earlier this year when it scheduled a vote on a highly controversial and divisive bill to ban public-employee collective bargaining rights for everything including pay increases that exceed the rate of inflation.
The four-member Supreme Court majority posited that a "lower court judge who voided the law on grounds that lawmakers violated Wisconsin’s open meetings law while passing it 'invaded the legislature’s constitutional powers.'"
(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57010.html#ixzz1PLerN0lf)
So does that mean the Legislature can create any law it wants, but doesn't have to abide by it?
If the third branch of government has no say in how the second branch of government conducts the People's business, haven't the four-member majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in their ruling, effectively negated the balance of power that forms the foundation of democracy in this country?
In the four-member majority's version of the rule of law, what's to prevent legislative tyranny in Wisconsin? Certainly not the Legislature's tyrannical partner, Scott Walker
Wisconsin's open meeting law requires 24-hour notice. The Republican-dominated state Assembly gave less than two hours notice earlier this year when it scheduled a vote on a highly controversial and divisive bill to ban public-employee collective bargaining rights for everything including pay increases that exceed the rate of inflation.
The four-member Supreme Court majority posited that a "lower court judge who voided the law on grounds that lawmakers violated Wisconsin’s open meetings law while passing it 'invaded the legislature’s constitutional powers.'"
(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57010.html#ixzz1PLerN0lf)
So does that mean the Legislature can create any law it wants, but doesn't have to abide by it?
If the third branch of government has no say in how the second branch of government conducts the People's business, haven't the four-member majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in their ruling, effectively negated the balance of power that forms the foundation of democracy in this country?
In the four-member majority's version of the rule of law, what's to prevent legislative tyranny in Wisconsin? Certainly not the Legislature's tyrannical partner, Scott Walker
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Tin Ears and Bad Policy
Part of that absurdity is tpers' thinking that reducing revenue increases economic prosperity. That has never been the case historically and certainly isn't true for families or individuals. Ditto the business world and just about every other aspect of society.
People and companies traditionally seek ways to increase their income as a means of achieving economic viability, stability and security. Of course, they have to be fiscally responsible, but after cutting expenses down to necessities, the consequences become pretty dire.
So how does reducing government revenue work any differently? The major cause of the fix the U.S. is in is the Bush administration eight-year spending binge that, because they took a cut in pay, they charged on the nation's credit card. So now, tpers rationalize that the secret to getting out of this hole is to shrink the size of government, which means slashing benefits and services.
But what they mean is to cut government benefits and services for other people and for programs that don't affect them.
Remember tper signs during the summer of tp rage? "No socialized healthcare" but "Keep your hands off my Medicare."
Even as newly elected tp pols took office in January, some were outraged that their GOVERNMENT-FUNDED healthcare didn't kick in immediately, but involved a short waiting period before they became effective.
Even tp governors who are slashing state government and government-funded services jump immediately to request federally funded emergency help when their states or areas in their states are devastated by natural disasters. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker applied for federal funds in the wake of a winter blizzard, Alabama and Missouri governors sought federal aid after tornados tore up regions of those states.
Then there is pathetic Texas Gov. Rick Perry who talked possible session last year then whined pitifully that Pres. Barack Obama had ignored his state when wildfires plagued it yet visited Alabama when tornados flattened parts of that state.
All the while, thanks to these same tpers, multinational corporations that are pulling in record profits (while much of America is losing wealth) are not only not paying their way -- i.e. they're getting a free ride -- we, the people who've lost jobs, homes, pensions and wages, are paying these fat cats subsidies and funding their tax credits.
Below is a letter my friend sent to novice Ohio Sen. Rob Portman followed by Portman's "reply," which really is stretching the meaning of that word.
But first, an observation: It is obvious from my friend's letter that he is (1) a senior citizen, (2) a retired decorated military officer, (3) never indicated that he goes by anything other than his given name, which is Richard. Yet, this elected official cavalierly addresses him as "Dick."
As another aside, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof points to the long-term consequences of a tp ideology in his column in today's Times, which is at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/opinion/05kristof.html?
Here is my friend's letter:
Dear Senator Portman
As a preface, let me tell you who I am. I am a Centerville, Oh resident. I am a veteran of 28 years service in the USAF. I served as a combat aircrew member during what is now being called the Southeast Asia war and have been decorated for valor during that war only to be spat upon on my arrival back in the country. I am retired on a fixed income and my wife and I depend on Medicare, Wright-Patterson Medical Center, and Tricare for Life for our medical needs. Our income comes from Social Security and my Air Force pension. We live comfortably but not ostentatiously. I am an Independent voter.
The time has come to balance our National Budget and begin to reduce our debt. I get the sense that the Congress and leadership of the country believes that we can do this by reducing spending alone. To me, this is an absurd conclusion. I am sick and tired of listening to the mantra, "We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem." Sir, we have a revenue problem and should admit to it.
Throughout history nations have funded wars through tax increases. With the advent of 9/11 we seemed to have decided to do the opposite. We have entered into two Wars of Convenience that have, and continue to, severely strain our funds, yet we instituted a "temporary" tax reduction in 2002 which continues to this day. This reduction in taxes has further strained our budget but seems to have had no positive impact other than to satisfy the obscenely rich. I hear reports on the news of families with incomes of over $250K who say they cannot make ends meet without the temporary tax cut. They clearly do not have a revenue problem but rather a spending problem. The tax levels during the late 1990s were not oppressive and allowed us to balance the budget. I keep hearing Washington pundits say that this temporary tax cut will enable small businesses to create new jobs. After 10 years of temporary reductions where are the jobs? Compare unemployment rates in 2001 to what we have today. It is time to admit we have a revenue problem.
A return to the tax levels of the 1990s will be a great step forward toward balancing the budget. That, coupled with intelligent reductions across the entire spectrum, will put us on the proper path. I and many of my colleagues, believe that a return to the 1990s level will not overly strain our financial position. Those making less will see a minuscule increase. Those making more will see a proportional increase and should be able to meet their tax demands. Now, remember, I am not calling for a tax increase but rather the end of a temporary tax reduction. I am convinced that this should delay, or eliminate the need for, a much greater tax increase in the future.
I hope that you, and your colleagues, will open your minds to the need for abolishing the temporary tax cuts of 2002.
I also subscribe to the need to reform Social Security and Medicare. This can be done by an increase in age eligibility, a substantial increase in the wage ceiling, and a reasonable increase in medicare monthly premiums. We also need to look toward cost reductions and delivery of care options. A move toward "privatization" is not the answer.
Please consider proposing reasonable modifications to our social programs. Let's improve Medicare and not proliferate "mediscare".
Sincerely,
Richard L. Brice
LT. Col USAF (ret)
Portman Responded:
Dear Dick,
Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns about TRICARE. I understand your displeasure with the changes in TRICARE proposed in President Obama's budget for fiscal year 2012. It is good to hear from you.
I have a great appreciation for our men and women in uniform who have sacrificed so much for our nation. I am committed to supporting our troops in their retirement years. In order to do this effectively, we must get our fiscal house in order. As Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted, the national debt is the single biggest threat to national security.
As you may be aware, the TRICARE fee increases proposed in the President's budget only impact retirees under 65 enrolled in TRICARE Prime, the managed care network. Retirees who use TRICARE Standard or TRICARE for Life would not see higher fees. Retirees' annual enrollment fee for TRICARE Prime would climb by $60, to $520, for families and by $30, to $260, for singles. This fee would be indexed to Medicare cost increases. These changes would result in a five-year savings of $430 million for the Department of Defense.
The President's budget also makes changes to copays for drugs for TRICARE beneficiaries in order to encourage greater use of generic and mail order prescription drugs. These changes could save TRICARE $2.6 billion over five years.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the vice chairman; and the four services' chiefs of staff sent a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee supporting the TRICARE proposals. They stated, "We understand that any changes to health care benefits create concern among the people we serve and the communities from which we receive care. . . . Our approach is careful, gradual, and responsible."
Thank you for taking the time to contact my office. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I will keep your views on TRICARE in mind. For more information, I encourage you to visit my website at www.portman.senate.gov. Please keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Rob Portman
As a preface, let me tell you who I am. I am a Centerville, Oh resident. I am a veteran of 28 years service in the USAF. I served as a combat aircrew member during what is now being called the Southeast Asia war and have been decorated for valor during that war only to be spat upon on my arrival back in the country. I am retired on a fixed income and my wife and I depend on Medicare, Wright-Patterson Medical Center, and Tricare for Life for our medical needs. Our income comes from Social Security and my Air Force pension. We live comfortably but not ostentatiously. I am an Independent voter.
The time has come to balance our National Budget and begin to reduce our debt. I get the sense that the Congress and leadership of the country believes that we can do this by reducing spending alone. To me, this is an absurd conclusion. I am sick and tired of listening to the mantra, "We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem." Sir, we have a revenue problem and should admit to it.
Throughout history nations have funded wars through tax increases. With the advent of 9/11 we seemed to have decided to do the opposite. We have entered into two Wars of Convenience that have, and continue to, severely strain our funds, yet we instituted a "temporary" tax reduction in 2002 which continues to this day. This reduction in taxes has further strained our budget but seems to have had no positive impact other than to satisfy the obscenely rich. I hear reports on the news of families with incomes of over $250K who say they cannot make ends meet without the temporary tax cut. They clearly do not have a revenue problem but rather a spending problem. The tax levels during the late 1990s were not oppressive and allowed us to balance the budget. I keep hearing Washington pundits say that this temporary tax cut will enable small businesses to create new jobs. After 10 years of temporary reductions where are the jobs? Compare unemployment rates in 2001 to what we have today. It is time to admit we have a revenue problem.
A return to the tax levels of the 1990s will be a great step forward toward balancing the budget. That, coupled with intelligent reductions across the entire spectrum, will put us on the proper path. I and many of my colleagues, believe that a return to the 1990s level will not overly strain our financial position. Those making less will see a minuscule increase. Those making more will see a proportional increase and should be able to meet their tax demands. Now, remember, I am not calling for a tax increase but rather the end of a temporary tax reduction. I am convinced that this should delay, or eliminate the need for, a much greater tax increase in the future.
I hope that you, and your colleagues, will open your minds to the need for abolishing the temporary tax cuts of 2002.
I also subscribe to the need to reform Social Security and Medicare. This can be done by an increase in age eligibility, a substantial increase in the wage ceiling, and a reasonable increase in medicare monthly premiums. We also need to look toward cost reductions and delivery of care options. A move toward "privatization" is not the answer.
Please consider proposing reasonable modifications to our social programs. Let's improve Medicare and not proliferate "mediscare".
Sincerely,
Richard L. Brice
LT. Col USAF (ret)
Portman Responded:
Dear Dick,
Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns about TRICARE. I understand your displeasure with the changes in TRICARE proposed in President Obama's budget for fiscal year 2012. It is good to hear from you.
I have a great appreciation for our men and women in uniform who have sacrificed so much for our nation. I am committed to supporting our troops in their retirement years. In order to do this effectively, we must get our fiscal house in order. As Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted, the national debt is the single biggest threat to national security.
As you may be aware, the TRICARE fee increases proposed in the President's budget only impact retirees under 65 enrolled in TRICARE Prime, the managed care network. Retirees who use TRICARE Standard or TRICARE for Life would not see higher fees. Retirees' annual enrollment fee for TRICARE Prime would climb by $60, to $520, for families and by $30, to $260, for singles. This fee would be indexed to Medicare cost increases. These changes would result in a five-year savings of $430 million for the Department of Defense.
The President's budget also makes changes to copays for drugs for TRICARE beneficiaries in order to encourage greater use of generic and mail order prescription drugs. These changes could save TRICARE $2.6 billion over five years.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the vice chairman; and the four services' chiefs of staff sent a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee supporting the TRICARE proposals. They stated, "We understand that any changes to health care benefits create concern among the people we serve and the communities from which we receive care. . . . Our approach is careful, gradual, and responsible."
Thank you for taking the time to contact my office. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I will keep your views on TRICARE in mind. For more information, I encourage you to visit my website at www.portman.senate.gov. Please keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Rob Portman
I responded:
I don't believe you read my letter completely. I merely stated that I receive my medical care through Tricare. I said nothing regarding the proposed increase in premiums. Currently Tricare for Life costs me nothing. I would not be averse to a small premium. What I did say in my letter was that I believe that the 2002 TEMPORARY tax cuts should be terminated. I also said that Medicare must be revamped but not in the way the Republican Part is advocating.
It is most discouraging to see one of my Senators replying to a letter with "Stock Reply XXX" just because I used the term "TriCare". I hope you attention to matters in the Senate is more focused. We need to let tax cuts expire in order to build our revenue stream. Simply cutting programs will not solve our national problems
Sincerely Disappointed,
Richard L Brice, Lt. Col. USAF, Ret.
It is most discouraging to see one of my Senators replying to a letter with "Stock Reply XXX" just because I used the term "TriCare". I hope you attention to matters in the Senate is more focused. We need to let tax cuts expire in order to build our revenue stream. Simply cutting programs will not solve our national problems
Sincerely Disappointed,
Richard L Brice, Lt. Col. USAF, Ret.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
A friend recently tried to communicate with one of his U.S. senators about the country's debt situation and ended up as frustrated as I am about the tin ear of the current crop of tp pols and the total absurdity of their ideology.