Thursday, March 25, 2010
GOING ROGUE
Some observers declare that the Republican Party has been hi-jacked by extremists. Others argue with that premise. They say that the Republican Party has gone along as a willing hostage with the radicals and extremists it has taken into its tent. Our vote here would come down on the latter side, with the possible caveat that party leadership and mainliners are so inept, impotent, or cowardly that they have been putting up no resistance to the extremists.
As it has tried unsuccessfully to meet the insatiable demands of its lunatic fringe, and lacked the courage to resist, the party has followed sheepishly down the primrose path of toward moral and intellectual bankruptcy.
Individual republicans feel that they will be shunned and cast out of leadership if they do not coddle, and even encourage, the thugs and kooks around them – as well as the stars of right wing media. Perhaps some see the espousing of violence and hoodlum tactics as the road to a return to a position of political power which they lost to democrats in 2008. Seeing the tactics some were willing to use against the democrats during the summer of disorderly town hall meetings, perhaps mainstream republicans are fearful of becoming the target of such hooliganism themselves.
Republicans certainly showed no character and no courage in openly challenging the disorderly, disrespectful, and threatening members of their tea party people as they engaged in despicable conduct outside the Capitol this last week. Members of the majority party were called names, including racial and homophobic epithets, and even spat upon by tea party protestors outside the Capitol as they ran a rowdy, taunting gauntlet to enter the building. (Can you imagine the elderly, dignified black congressman, a veteran of vicious abuses as he once marched with Dr. King in Selma, being spat upon and called the N__ word by these kooks?)
Instead of admonishment, some republicans spoke to the protestors, encouraged them, and even appeared on the Capitol balcony to wave, endorse, and encourage their conduct. Some republicans made positive comments to the media, generally bestowing on that group of angry, unruly hoodlums the distinction of representing “the American people,” who they said were angry about the health care bill. My word!
Inside the House Chamber another republican congressman added his name to an infamous list started by Joe Wilson, who yelled, “You lie!” Randy Neugebauer yelled at Congressman Stupak, “Baby Killer!” Of course, both apologized, but they both went right out and advertised their misconduct as a way to raise money from fellow republicans who oblige by sending contributions to encourage further misbehavior. This reminds us of the praise of “hero” some offered to the man who flew his airplane into the IRS building recently, killing one worker. Any party that does or condones this no longer deserves a place at the table in civil discourse.
Since the historic vote, the media have observed a concerted, somewhat coordinated effort among right wing republicans to terrorize their opposition in the democrat party. Democrat congressmen have been getting lunatic calls threatening them and their family, their offices have been vandalized in various parts of the country, and they have reason to fear actual harm from an orchestrated effort at domestic terrorism. Right wing web sites and talk radio guests have been advocating throwing bricks through office windows and otherwise demonstrating distaste for democrats.
Some republican leaders have actually encouraged such inflammatory conduct, generously using loaded words and signals in their releases. Sarah Palin spoke of “reloading,” “targets,” and used “cross-hair gun sights” in her material. This is despicable. Apparently she is trying to validate her identity, “Going Rogue.”
Actually much of what is being done and said has gone way past the level of free political expression, and it has become criminal and treasonous. How far does this have to go before law enforcement steps out and takes some of these rogues by the arm and off to jail? Why do we tolerate the use of our media by the likes of Glen Beck on Fox News to foment rebellion?
While republicans would like for us to believe that their opposition to health insurance reform has nothing to do with racism, a closer look at those most affected by lack of health insurance would tend to undermine that assertion. It turns out that only 10% of white people don’t have health insurance, while about 20% of black people don’t have it, and a whopping 30% of Hispanics are without insurance. Thus, it is clear that lack of health insurance coverage hits poor people and non-whites the worst. Could it be that republicans are just not motivated by the plight of the poor and non-white in our society if it costs taxes? Is that why this issue took such a racial turn?
Republican leaders have done nothing to call off the mad dog element within their party. Instead of calling them out, telling them they are not wanted in a civil political party, they are praised and encouraged. Of course, lip service is paid to non-violent expression of political views, but in no way do they actually declare that violence, threats, hooliganism, racial epithets, and the like will no longer be tolerated in the party.
A very sobering Harris poll came out this week. In a survey of self-identified republicans only, it turns out that 67% believe that President Obama is a socialist, 57% believe that he is Muslim, and 38% believe he has been using Hitler tactics.
Folks, these numbers are scary. It shows the level of success the wild rhetoric of media and party extremists have had on party regulars. They actually believe all this stuff. It matters not that these beliefs contradict the facts. It matters not that these are irrational ideas and notions. It might be that the real “mainstream” of the republican party really is this group of kooks and radicals.
Have we been operating under an illusion in thinking the republican party is even capable right now of civil discourse of any meaningful kind?
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
As it has tried unsuccessfully to meet the insatiable demands of its lunatic fringe, and lacked the courage to resist, the party has followed sheepishly down the primrose path of toward moral and intellectual bankruptcy.
Individual republicans feel that they will be shunned and cast out of leadership if they do not coddle, and even encourage, the thugs and kooks around them – as well as the stars of right wing media. Perhaps some see the espousing of violence and hoodlum tactics as the road to a return to a position of political power which they lost to democrats in 2008. Seeing the tactics some were willing to use against the democrats during the summer of disorderly town hall meetings, perhaps mainstream republicans are fearful of becoming the target of such hooliganism themselves.
Republicans certainly showed no character and no courage in openly challenging the disorderly, disrespectful, and threatening members of their tea party people as they engaged in despicable conduct outside the Capitol this last week. Members of the majority party were called names, including racial and homophobic epithets, and even spat upon by tea party protestors outside the Capitol as they ran a rowdy, taunting gauntlet to enter the building. (Can you imagine the elderly, dignified black congressman, a veteran of vicious abuses as he once marched with Dr. King in Selma, being spat upon and called the N__ word by these kooks?)
Instead of admonishment, some republicans spoke to the protestors, encouraged them, and even appeared on the Capitol balcony to wave, endorse, and encourage their conduct. Some republicans made positive comments to the media, generally bestowing on that group of angry, unruly hoodlums the distinction of representing “the American people,” who they said were angry about the health care bill. My word!
Inside the House Chamber another republican congressman added his name to an infamous list started by Joe Wilson, who yelled, “You lie!” Randy Neugebauer yelled at Congressman Stupak, “Baby Killer!” Of course, both apologized, but they both went right out and advertised their misconduct as a way to raise money from fellow republicans who oblige by sending contributions to encourage further misbehavior. This reminds us of the praise of “hero” some offered to the man who flew his airplane into the IRS building recently, killing one worker. Any party that does or condones this no longer deserves a place at the table in civil discourse.
Since the historic vote, the media have observed a concerted, somewhat coordinated effort among right wing republicans to terrorize their opposition in the democrat party. Democrat congressmen have been getting lunatic calls threatening them and their family, their offices have been vandalized in various parts of the country, and they have reason to fear actual harm from an orchestrated effort at domestic terrorism. Right wing web sites and talk radio guests have been advocating throwing bricks through office windows and otherwise demonstrating distaste for democrats.
Some republican leaders have actually encouraged such inflammatory conduct, generously using loaded words and signals in their releases. Sarah Palin spoke of “reloading,” “targets,” and used “cross-hair gun sights” in her material. This is despicable. Apparently she is trying to validate her identity, “Going Rogue.”
Actually much of what is being done and said has gone way past the level of free political expression, and it has become criminal and treasonous. How far does this have to go before law enforcement steps out and takes some of these rogues by the arm and off to jail? Why do we tolerate the use of our media by the likes of Glen Beck on Fox News to foment rebellion?
While republicans would like for us to believe that their opposition to health insurance reform has nothing to do with racism, a closer look at those most affected by lack of health insurance would tend to undermine that assertion. It turns out that only 10% of white people don’t have health insurance, while about 20% of black people don’t have it, and a whopping 30% of Hispanics are without insurance. Thus, it is clear that lack of health insurance coverage hits poor people and non-whites the worst. Could it be that republicans are just not motivated by the plight of the poor and non-white in our society if it costs taxes? Is that why this issue took such a racial turn?
Republican leaders have done nothing to call off the mad dog element within their party. Instead of calling them out, telling them they are not wanted in a civil political party, they are praised and encouraged. Of course, lip service is paid to non-violent expression of political views, but in no way do they actually declare that violence, threats, hooliganism, racial epithets, and the like will no longer be tolerated in the party.
A very sobering Harris poll came out this week. In a survey of self-identified republicans only, it turns out that 67% believe that President Obama is a socialist, 57% believe that he is Muslim, and 38% believe he has been using Hitler tactics.
Folks, these numbers are scary. It shows the level of success the wild rhetoric of media and party extremists have had on party regulars. They actually believe all this stuff. It matters not that these beliefs contradict the facts. It matters not that these are irrational ideas and notions. It might be that the real “mainstream” of the republican party really is this group of kooks and radicals.
Have we been operating under an illusion in thinking the republican party is even capable right now of civil discourse of any meaningful kind?
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
HEALTH CARE MYTHS
Who has not heard the republican rhetoric about the health care proposals in Congress? Too many myths, and not enough truths, have been spread about health care proposals of the Obama administration and those initiated in Congress. These myths are a part of the regular talking points of every republican who makes an appearance before a crowd or a television camera.
Seeking to tap into the anti-government sentiments of a reactionary group of Oklahomans, Michael Steele hit several of these talking points a week or so ago in a visit to Oklahoma. The republican party is running a one-minute ad touching on their various talking points: “Today our freedom is threatened in America. President Obama and Nancy Pelosi are experimenting with America – massive government expansion, government takeovers, redistribution of wealth, staggering debt to countries like China.” Tea-baggers are at it again with their signs, slogans, and smears.
All kinds of lies have been told publicly and circulated privately about health care bills since last spring. There were lies about “death panels,” rationing of health care services, waiting lines, people losing their present policies, raising everybody’s taxes, running up big deficits for health care, increasing health care costs and premiums for policy-holders, government bureaucrats coming between you and your doctor, and all those things.
Some of us will surely retch if we hear again the republican accusation of “government takeover of health care, the sixth largest segment of our economy.” That is, of course, the share of our GDP spent on health care, and it is shameful that the most costly health care system in the world leaves out nearly 20 percent of the people, gives inadequate care to another 20 percent, and threatens to bankrupt the economy.
Since there has been no effort at taking over health care services per se, even the republicans know that, then the myth would be better directed at efforts to regulate health insurance and to subsidize insurance for those who cannot afford its current high cost. But, then, what is bad about that?
In actuality, the government already pays for almost half of American health care through Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Administration, Indian Health Service, and other programs. Private health insurance covers only a little over one-third of the health care given in this country. Most of this comes through employer based programs, which are subsidized through tax exemptions.
Government is already deeply involved in health care, and there is no big, new “socialistic menace” contained in the new health care proposals.
There is a myth that the new proposals will result in individuals losing their current private health care plans, and some of those folk are uneasy about change. Assurances, repeatedly given, that this will not happen have not been heard clearly through the political smoke screen and cacophony of shouting voices.
The truth is that private insurance plans through employers are getting increasingly expensive. A recent survey of employers regarding the future of health insurance as it now exists is discouraging. This poll shows that two-thirds of the company execs expect that their employee plans will have less coverage and will be more expensive. More than half expect to increase employee share of costs in the form of deductibles and co-pays. Twenty percent already screen for health conditions and 20 percent more expect to do so.
These are the truths that should be worrying those who already have insurance. What have they to fear about a government-facilitated option of a private insurance exchange open to their employer to keep down costs through competition? Or, for that matter, what have they to fear about the offering of a “public option” similar to Medicare, which they could choose if their employer drops their plan? That could really cut costs. What’s wrong with that?
Small groups and those who must buy coverage individually face real hardships in costs and in exclusions. Small businesses, the self-employed, and individuals without groups can ill afford any policy with decent coverage. They are the worst victims of this system. What’s wrong with helping these with options, and those who have no insurance at all?
Another commonly believed set of myths surround the notion that the new health care plan will drive insurance costs up, do nothing about total health care costs, and will drive up deficits to bankrupt the country. None of these is true. A 1% increase in total costs with the new plan, as forecast by Medicare actuaries for the year 2019, would be quite a success considering that millions of new people being covered within the system and improved benefits given. Objective CBO forecasts have the new plan resulting in a reduction of more than $100 billion from the deficit within 10 years, helping rather than hindering debt problems.
Although republicans have succeeded in putting doubt and fear into the minds of millions of Americans about the health proposals coming from their mandate in the 2008 elections, the tide of opinion seems to be shifting back as some realization of differences in fact and fiction emerge and take hold. Those favoring health care reform had dropped from an average of about 68% to 47% as a result of bitterly poison political propaganda spread through tea parties, politicians and pundits, corporately funded advertising, Fox News, and other efforts.
Approval appears to be returning above the 50% mark as a result of information efforts by the president and others. Oddly enough, when the different elements in the proposals are broken out separately in polls, favorability ratings have always stayed above 60%. This makes it evident that the steady staccato of condemning lies about this awful socialistic plan about to befall us had its effects. A number of unthinking persons have been led to condemn the whole of the parts they like – not a rational position.
It is important to dispel the myths and to look at the realities of this very complex proposal to salvage the benefits of a technologically advanced, but inefficient and underperforming, health care system for all Americans. It is time look again at the desperate human conditions that abound. Time is short. The propitious moment must not pass without action.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Seeking to tap into the anti-government sentiments of a reactionary group of Oklahomans, Michael Steele hit several of these talking points a week or so ago in a visit to Oklahoma. The republican party is running a one-minute ad touching on their various talking points: “Today our freedom is threatened in America. President Obama and Nancy Pelosi are experimenting with America – massive government expansion, government takeovers, redistribution of wealth, staggering debt to countries like China.” Tea-baggers are at it again with their signs, slogans, and smears.
All kinds of lies have been told publicly and circulated privately about health care bills since last spring. There were lies about “death panels,” rationing of health care services, waiting lines, people losing their present policies, raising everybody’s taxes, running up big deficits for health care, increasing health care costs and premiums for policy-holders, government bureaucrats coming between you and your doctor, and all those things.
Some of us will surely retch if we hear again the republican accusation of “government takeover of health care, the sixth largest segment of our economy.” That is, of course, the share of our GDP spent on health care, and it is shameful that the most costly health care system in the world leaves out nearly 20 percent of the people, gives inadequate care to another 20 percent, and threatens to bankrupt the economy.
Since there has been no effort at taking over health care services per se, even the republicans know that, then the myth would be better directed at efforts to regulate health insurance and to subsidize insurance for those who cannot afford its current high cost. But, then, what is bad about that?
In actuality, the government already pays for almost half of American health care through Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Administration, Indian Health Service, and other programs. Private health insurance covers only a little over one-third of the health care given in this country. Most of this comes through employer based programs, which are subsidized through tax exemptions.
Government is already deeply involved in health care, and there is no big, new “socialistic menace” contained in the new health care proposals.
There is a myth that the new proposals will result in individuals losing their current private health care plans, and some of those folk are uneasy about change. Assurances, repeatedly given, that this will not happen have not been heard clearly through the political smoke screen and cacophony of shouting voices.
The truth is that private insurance plans through employers are getting increasingly expensive. A recent survey of employers regarding the future of health insurance as it now exists is discouraging. This poll shows that two-thirds of the company execs expect that their employee plans will have less coverage and will be more expensive. More than half expect to increase employee share of costs in the form of deductibles and co-pays. Twenty percent already screen for health conditions and 20 percent more expect to do so.
These are the truths that should be worrying those who already have insurance. What have they to fear about a government-facilitated option of a private insurance exchange open to their employer to keep down costs through competition? Or, for that matter, what have they to fear about the offering of a “public option” similar to Medicare, which they could choose if their employer drops their plan? That could really cut costs. What’s wrong with that?
Small groups and those who must buy coverage individually face real hardships in costs and in exclusions. Small businesses, the self-employed, and individuals without groups can ill afford any policy with decent coverage. They are the worst victims of this system. What’s wrong with helping these with options, and those who have no insurance at all?
Another commonly believed set of myths surround the notion that the new health care plan will drive insurance costs up, do nothing about total health care costs, and will drive up deficits to bankrupt the country. None of these is true. A 1% increase in total costs with the new plan, as forecast by Medicare actuaries for the year 2019, would be quite a success considering that millions of new people being covered within the system and improved benefits given. Objective CBO forecasts have the new plan resulting in a reduction of more than $100 billion from the deficit within 10 years, helping rather than hindering debt problems.
Although republicans have succeeded in putting doubt and fear into the minds of millions of Americans about the health proposals coming from their mandate in the 2008 elections, the tide of opinion seems to be shifting back as some realization of differences in fact and fiction emerge and take hold. Those favoring health care reform had dropped from an average of about 68% to 47% as a result of bitterly poison political propaganda spread through tea parties, politicians and pundits, corporately funded advertising, Fox News, and other efforts.
Approval appears to be returning above the 50% mark as a result of information efforts by the president and others. Oddly enough, when the different elements in the proposals are broken out separately in polls, favorability ratings have always stayed above 60%. This makes it evident that the steady staccato of condemning lies about this awful socialistic plan about to befall us had its effects. A number of unthinking persons have been led to condemn the whole of the parts they like – not a rational position.
It is important to dispel the myths and to look at the realities of this very complex proposal to salvage the benefits of a technologically advanced, but inefficient and underperforming, health care system for all Americans. It is time look again at the desperate human conditions that abound. Time is short. The propitious moment must not pass without action.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Thursday, March 11, 2010
BROKEN GOVERNMENT
“Our government is broken,” say some politicians and pundits. If indeed this condition exists, then its “breaking” must have been an event. News reporters covering an event are taught to ask certain questions to ascertain the full story. These are questions like: “who,” “what,” “where,” “when,” and “how.”
So, “Who broke our government?” “When was our government broken?” “Where did this happen?” “How did this breaking take place?” But first we might ask, “Who says government is broken?”
Primarily, it is republican politicians and pundits who have been peddling the notion that government is broken. They have been joined by others who are accustomed to repeating whatever they hear, rather than thinking for themselves. Still others may be looking at the turmoil involved in trying to accomplish anything good in the present partisan standoff in Congress, and then concluding that government itself is broken.
If our government is broken, when did that happen? Was that just lately? Or, was it earlier when we went to war based on false premises, violated international law in treatment of prisoners, ran up deficits while giving tax cuts to the rich, tried to destroy Social Security, deregulated the financial sector into speculative chaos, and wrecked the economy -- throwing the nation into severe recession? When did all that breaking happen? Who did that?
By way of clarification, perhaps we should first try to identify exactly what is broken, if anything. Government itself is NOT broken! The Congress is broken. Democracy, as it is practiced under U. S. Senate rules, is broken.
Who has broken the ability of Congress to function? Quite clearly, this is the excessive partisanship, hostile rhetoric, threats, and the unanimity of negativism of republican senators and congresspersons. Congress is dysfunctional because republicans have chosen to make it so.
Perhaps republicans have done this in a desperate attempt to keep the democratic party’s agenda from passing. In their own public declarations, they have said, “We want President Obama to fail. If we can defeat health care legislation, we will break his presidency.” They mentioned nothing about the good of the country. They have followed that line with actions of voting “No” on every piece of legislation which comes before them.” Further, they have engaged in every delaying tactic and parliamentary blocking maneuver open to them, and those have been many.
In particular, the republicans have taken advantage of Senate rules adopted during an earlier period of gentlemanly political chivalry in relationships and conduct styles. To work, Senate rules depend on common courtesy, decency, and a code of honor among gentlemen (and ladies). Without common courtesies and mutual respect, the Senate becomes hamstrung by its own rules and is unable to perform its duties of governance for the people. When one party’s constituency abandons this code, then the other cannot continue to abide by it and be effective. This is what has occurred.
The rule regarding sixty votes for cloture (closing debate, cutting off a filibuster, and bringing an issue to a vote) may not have always been the bad thing that it is now. When parties and members were restrained, and the threat of a filibuster was rare, it may have been helpful in slowing a few actions for greater deliberation. But it is poison in this partisan environment.
The 60 vote rule in the Senate is antithetical to democracy, where a majority must rule. It is counterproductive to the functioning of our American democracy, and it should be scrapped immediately. It has “broken” our Senate, and rendered it dysfunctional.
There is another Senate rule which is even worse, and must also be scrapped immediately. This is the rule that allows a single senator to hold up consideration of a bill or a presidential appointment. This rule, borne in that period of political chivalry and excess courtesy, is being grossly abused. A single senator can thwart the will of not only the Senate majority but the entire Congress and the nation. This has been happening regularly.
Our own two senators from Oklahoma have used this frequently, as a matter of personal privilege and arrogance, to hold up actions of the entire Senate, therefore the government. Senator Coburn’s offices have been picketed by crowds of interested Oklahoma young people over his hold on humanitarian aid to an oppressed people in Africa. Earlier he held up money for veterans’ health care, citing his same “principle.”
His “principle” sounds good, of course, not adding to spending without dropping some other equal amount. However, his actions appear hypocritical, since he has repeatedly voted for other personally favored expenditures not paid for or balanced, including huge outlays. Last week, a republican senator from Kentucky held up a bill stopping unemployment compensation for a half-million stressed people, Medicare payments for thousands, as well as halting highway projects and salaries of thousands of staff. The entire Senate, the whole Congress, and the whole country were frustrated by his irresponsible actions.
This senate rule seems to shift government from a rule by democracy to “rule by arrogant kooks.” Such a rule has no place in our democratic government. If we are going to fix what is actually broken about government, then we need to start by ridding ourselves of such rules.
This writer is not sure what can be done when one political party in unison decides to be uncooperative and obstructive in the democratic processes of our legislative branch. It is uncertain just what can be done when an opposition party decides to abandon the interests of the people in order to prevent the functioning of government in the hands of the elected majority party. Their obvious goal is to create an impression of inability and incompetence in the majority party, and thus to recapture power for themselves.
Only an intelligent and informed citizenry can keep such tactics from succeeding politically. Do we have such in America? That remains to be seen. Our voters have already shown themselves far too vulnerable to political con artists. We can expect better, but not with great optimism.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
So, “Who broke our government?” “When was our government broken?” “Where did this happen?” “How did this breaking take place?” But first we might ask, “Who says government is broken?”
Primarily, it is republican politicians and pundits who have been peddling the notion that government is broken. They have been joined by others who are accustomed to repeating whatever they hear, rather than thinking for themselves. Still others may be looking at the turmoil involved in trying to accomplish anything good in the present partisan standoff in Congress, and then concluding that government itself is broken.
If our government is broken, when did that happen? Was that just lately? Or, was it earlier when we went to war based on false premises, violated international law in treatment of prisoners, ran up deficits while giving tax cuts to the rich, tried to destroy Social Security, deregulated the financial sector into speculative chaos, and wrecked the economy -- throwing the nation into severe recession? When did all that breaking happen? Who did that?
By way of clarification, perhaps we should first try to identify exactly what is broken, if anything. Government itself is NOT broken! The Congress is broken. Democracy, as it is practiced under U. S. Senate rules, is broken.
Who has broken the ability of Congress to function? Quite clearly, this is the excessive partisanship, hostile rhetoric, threats, and the unanimity of negativism of republican senators and congresspersons. Congress is dysfunctional because republicans have chosen to make it so.
Perhaps republicans have done this in a desperate attempt to keep the democratic party’s agenda from passing. In their own public declarations, they have said, “We want President Obama to fail. If we can defeat health care legislation, we will break his presidency.” They mentioned nothing about the good of the country. They have followed that line with actions of voting “No” on every piece of legislation which comes before them.” Further, they have engaged in every delaying tactic and parliamentary blocking maneuver open to them, and those have been many.
In particular, the republicans have taken advantage of Senate rules adopted during an earlier period of gentlemanly political chivalry in relationships and conduct styles. To work, Senate rules depend on common courtesy, decency, and a code of honor among gentlemen (and ladies). Without common courtesies and mutual respect, the Senate becomes hamstrung by its own rules and is unable to perform its duties of governance for the people. When one party’s constituency abandons this code, then the other cannot continue to abide by it and be effective. This is what has occurred.
The rule regarding sixty votes for cloture (closing debate, cutting off a filibuster, and bringing an issue to a vote) may not have always been the bad thing that it is now. When parties and members were restrained, and the threat of a filibuster was rare, it may have been helpful in slowing a few actions for greater deliberation. But it is poison in this partisan environment.
The 60 vote rule in the Senate is antithetical to democracy, where a majority must rule. It is counterproductive to the functioning of our American democracy, and it should be scrapped immediately. It has “broken” our Senate, and rendered it dysfunctional.
There is another Senate rule which is even worse, and must also be scrapped immediately. This is the rule that allows a single senator to hold up consideration of a bill or a presidential appointment. This rule, borne in that period of political chivalry and excess courtesy, is being grossly abused. A single senator can thwart the will of not only the Senate majority but the entire Congress and the nation. This has been happening regularly.
Our own two senators from Oklahoma have used this frequently, as a matter of personal privilege and arrogance, to hold up actions of the entire Senate, therefore the government. Senator Coburn’s offices have been picketed by crowds of interested Oklahoma young people over his hold on humanitarian aid to an oppressed people in Africa. Earlier he held up money for veterans’ health care, citing his same “principle.”
His “principle” sounds good, of course, not adding to spending without dropping some other equal amount. However, his actions appear hypocritical, since he has repeatedly voted for other personally favored expenditures not paid for or balanced, including huge outlays. Last week, a republican senator from Kentucky held up a bill stopping unemployment compensation for a half-million stressed people, Medicare payments for thousands, as well as halting highway projects and salaries of thousands of staff. The entire Senate, the whole Congress, and the whole country were frustrated by his irresponsible actions.
This senate rule seems to shift government from a rule by democracy to “rule by arrogant kooks.” Such a rule has no place in our democratic government. If we are going to fix what is actually broken about government, then we need to start by ridding ourselves of such rules.
This writer is not sure what can be done when one political party in unison decides to be uncooperative and obstructive in the democratic processes of our legislative branch. It is uncertain just what can be done when an opposition party decides to abandon the interests of the people in order to prevent the functioning of government in the hands of the elected majority party. Their obvious goal is to create an impression of inability and incompetence in the majority party, and thus to recapture power for themselves.
Only an intelligent and informed citizenry can keep such tactics from succeeding politically. Do we have such in America? That remains to be seen. Our voters have already shown themselves far too vulnerable to political con artists. We can expect better, but not with great optimism.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Friday, March 05, 2010
TAX CREDITS HAVE MULTIPLE INTERPRETATIONS
The Governor has proposed a moratorium on certain tax credits in the State of Oklahoma. He suggests that doing so would add some $300 million to funds available to alleviate shortages of up to $900 million in next year’s budget for the state. Some republicans in legislative leadership positions are squealing as though their pig had been stuck. Should this make us wonder why?
First of all, we need to be sure that we understand the meaning of tax credits. Is this the same as tax deductions? Is a tax credit the same as a tax break? Are tax credits handed out to everybody, or are tax credits restricted only to persons or companies who meet certain criteria? Are tax credits fair? Is a tax credit the same as a tax cut? These are all good questions.
Perhaps we should start with the last question first. Is there a difference between a tax credit and a tax cut? The answer is “No,” not as far as the negative effect on state revenue available to meet the state’s needs. Tax credits are tax cuts. The major difference is that the tax credit is a not a cut in taxes for everyone. They are selective – just for those who are defined to be qualified for the tax credit. Everybody else pays the tax.
This brings up the second question: Are tax credits fair? The answer is, “No.” Tax credits are given only to those who are especially defined by legislators as deserving of them. Everybody else pays the tax as levied. For tax credits to be handed out, supposedly the receiving person or business is doing something of high priority for the good of the state. What kind of good thing? Perhaps they started a new business, brought a job to town, put insulation in an attic, bought farm equipment or supplies, bought an electric vehicle, added a job to their business, and the like. Tax credits work just like tax exemptions.
It should be understood that every tax break of any kind is set up to serve a special interest group, usually one with a voting bloc, hired lobbyists, and big campaign donors. By definition these are unfair to others.
Have you seen a listing on your state tax return lately showing all the credits and rebates for which you (or your more favored friends) might be individually qualified? The list is long, but our legislature just keeps adding to it. And our revenue keeps shrinking. Tax credits can become quite chilling to state income.
A tax deduction is not the same, although tax deductions can add up to big money. A tax deduction is an authorized subtraction from a person’s income, or a company’s net profits, to determine net taxable income. It is a deduction from the income upon which a tax rate is then levied. Thus the cost of a tax deduction to the state is around 5% or less than its cost would be as a tax credit. Authorized deductions have been growing, but not at the rate of credits. Most deductions go to nearly everybody, while others go to a few. Some beneficiaries would prefer that you remain confused about the difference.
While we are not discussing tax rates at any length, we should also understand that not all income is taxed alike, i.e. not the same rate as a worker’s earned income from a job. Growth in wealth, i.e. capital gains (property or intangibles sold at a profit) may be taxed at much lower rates. It is important to be aware that payroll taxes, such as social security and Medicare, paid by all workers, are not paid on income from capital gains. That is nearly a 10% federal/state tax break, in addition to the lower rate levy.
Unrealized capital gains (gains in market value, but retained and not sold), may not be taxed at all by either the state or federal government. Without inheritance taxes, most unrealized capital gains will never be taxed at all from generation to generation to generation. That is one way family wealth is accumulated, kept, and increased.
Another concept, more difficult to accept, is that a tax cut or a tax credit has the same effect on the state as an expenditure. Thus, in making a decision to grant (or continue) a tax credit, a legislator should ask himself, “Would I spend taxpayers’ dollars to buy this value?” It means the same to the state’s finances, because every dollar in income given away as a tax credit is the same as giving away a collected state dollar to that company or person. The real question is: “Is it in the state’s interest to give this dollar away to these people for this purpose?” Often that answer becomes, “No!”
That question becomes further complicated during a period of revenue shortfalls which causes budget cuts for schools, prisons, child welfare, senior services, children’s food programs, mental health treatment, and all kinds of services needed by citizens. Legislators should ask, “Is this tax break really important enough for us to continue to take money away from vital state services and give it to these companies or this class of people. Which is more important to the welfare of the citizens of the State of Oklahoma?
Some of the general categories into which some existing tax credits fall include the following, according to the Oklahoma Policy Institute:
Corporate tax credits, inc. jobs -- $120 Million; Used car dealers excise tax -- $70 Million; Agriculture sales tax exemptions -- $64 Million; Oil and gas incentive rebates -- $57 Million; Livestock, out of state deals -- $48 Million
Sales of advertising -- $48 Million; Corp. tax cr., rural venture capital -- $45 Million; Manufacturers property taxes -- $45 Million; Other venture capital -- $27 Million.
The listing above is only a partial one. For a much more complete listing, the reader is referred to the Oklahoma Policy Institute’s website. A listing of the Governor’s recommendations for a moratorium is also available on the internet.
The point made here is that the number and the dollar amounts of tax credits and tax breaks are significant enough to be outright stupefying. It is high time that questions were raised about these. It is time that a careful scrutiny, free of political bias, is made of all these drags on the state’s treasury and economy.
Should we really be giving the state’s money away while state services are suffering?
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
First of all, we need to be sure that we understand the meaning of tax credits. Is this the same as tax deductions? Is a tax credit the same as a tax break? Are tax credits handed out to everybody, or are tax credits restricted only to persons or companies who meet certain criteria? Are tax credits fair? Is a tax credit the same as a tax cut? These are all good questions.
Perhaps we should start with the last question first. Is there a difference between a tax credit and a tax cut? The answer is “No,” not as far as the negative effect on state revenue available to meet the state’s needs. Tax credits are tax cuts. The major difference is that the tax credit is a not a cut in taxes for everyone. They are selective – just for those who are defined to be qualified for the tax credit. Everybody else pays the tax.
This brings up the second question: Are tax credits fair? The answer is, “No.” Tax credits are given only to those who are especially defined by legislators as deserving of them. Everybody else pays the tax as levied. For tax credits to be handed out, supposedly the receiving person or business is doing something of high priority for the good of the state. What kind of good thing? Perhaps they started a new business, brought a job to town, put insulation in an attic, bought farm equipment or supplies, bought an electric vehicle, added a job to their business, and the like. Tax credits work just like tax exemptions.
It should be understood that every tax break of any kind is set up to serve a special interest group, usually one with a voting bloc, hired lobbyists, and big campaign donors. By definition these are unfair to others.
Have you seen a listing on your state tax return lately showing all the credits and rebates for which you (or your more favored friends) might be individually qualified? The list is long, but our legislature just keeps adding to it. And our revenue keeps shrinking. Tax credits can become quite chilling to state income.
A tax deduction is not the same, although tax deductions can add up to big money. A tax deduction is an authorized subtraction from a person’s income, or a company’s net profits, to determine net taxable income. It is a deduction from the income upon which a tax rate is then levied. Thus the cost of a tax deduction to the state is around 5% or less than its cost would be as a tax credit. Authorized deductions have been growing, but not at the rate of credits. Most deductions go to nearly everybody, while others go to a few. Some beneficiaries would prefer that you remain confused about the difference.
While we are not discussing tax rates at any length, we should also understand that not all income is taxed alike, i.e. not the same rate as a worker’s earned income from a job. Growth in wealth, i.e. capital gains (property or intangibles sold at a profit) may be taxed at much lower rates. It is important to be aware that payroll taxes, such as social security and Medicare, paid by all workers, are not paid on income from capital gains. That is nearly a 10% federal/state tax break, in addition to the lower rate levy.
Unrealized capital gains (gains in market value, but retained and not sold), may not be taxed at all by either the state or federal government. Without inheritance taxes, most unrealized capital gains will never be taxed at all from generation to generation to generation. That is one way family wealth is accumulated, kept, and increased.
Another concept, more difficult to accept, is that a tax cut or a tax credit has the same effect on the state as an expenditure. Thus, in making a decision to grant (or continue) a tax credit, a legislator should ask himself, “Would I spend taxpayers’ dollars to buy this value?” It means the same to the state’s finances, because every dollar in income given away as a tax credit is the same as giving away a collected state dollar to that company or person. The real question is: “Is it in the state’s interest to give this dollar away to these people for this purpose?” Often that answer becomes, “No!”
That question becomes further complicated during a period of revenue shortfalls which causes budget cuts for schools, prisons, child welfare, senior services, children’s food programs, mental health treatment, and all kinds of services needed by citizens. Legislators should ask, “Is this tax break really important enough for us to continue to take money away from vital state services and give it to these companies or this class of people. Which is more important to the welfare of the citizens of the State of Oklahoma?
Some of the general categories into which some existing tax credits fall include the following, according to the Oklahoma Policy Institute:
Corporate tax credits, inc. jobs -- $120 Million; Used car dealers excise tax -- $70 Million; Agriculture sales tax exemptions -- $64 Million; Oil and gas incentive rebates -- $57 Million; Livestock, out of state deals -- $48 Million
Sales of advertising -- $48 Million; Corp. tax cr., rural venture capital -- $45 Million; Manufacturers property taxes -- $45 Million; Other venture capital -- $27 Million.
The listing above is only a partial one. For a much more complete listing, the reader is referred to the Oklahoma Policy Institute’s website. A listing of the Governor’s recommendations for a moratorium is also available on the internet.
The point made here is that the number and the dollar amounts of tax credits and tax breaks are significant enough to be outright stupefying. It is high time that questions were raised about these. It is time that a careful scrutiny, free of political bias, is made of all these drags on the state’s treasury and economy.
Should we really be giving the state’s money away while state services are suffering?
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
