Tag: Congress

Name that socialist, a taxing question about partisanship

Name that socialist, a taxing question about partisanship

I want to begin with a quote.

We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary, and that’s crazy. It’s time we stopped it.

And the way I see it, if our current tax structure were a TV show, it would either be “Foul-ups, Bleeps, and Blunders,” or “Gimme a Break.” If it were a record album, it would be “Gimme Shelter.” If it were a movie, it would be “Revenge of the Nerds” or maybe “Take the Money and Run.” And if the IRS, Internal Revenue Service, ever wants a theme song, maybe they’ll get Sting to do, “Every breath you take, every move you make, I’ll be watching you.”

What we’re trying to move against is institutionalized unfairness. We want to see that everyone pays their fair share, and no one gets a free ride. Our reasons? It’s good for society when we all know that no one is manipulating the system to their advantage because they’re rich and powerful. But it’s also good for society when everyone pays something, that everyone makes a contribution.

After all, we’re all citizens, equal in the eyes of the law, and equal in the eyes of God. You’re given a lot of benefits when you’re born in the U.S.A, but you’re given a responsibility, too, a responsibility to do your part and become a contributing member of the American family and an equal partner in America, Incorporated. When you pay your taxes, you buy your shares. And every year you get to vote on who should be on the board of directors.

Now, you’ll be hearing more about our tax proposals over the next few weeks. A great debate has begun, and there will be much talk, pro and con. And that’s good, that’s what America’s all about.

Who said that? If you are of a certain political persuasion, you might have guessed it was that socialist Barack Obama. Or maybe it was a quote from a socialist newspaper or some other left wing politician. But it was Ronald Reagan at Northside High School in Atlanta, Georgia on June 6, 1985. The entire speech is in the Reagan archives maintained by The University of Texas at Austin.

I have 2 points. The Republican view of taxation was very different in Ronald Reagan’s day. And because the Republican party has moved so far to the right, the 2 parties cannot even have a serious discussion of this or other issues .

The extreme partisanship in the electorate is bad. The extreme partisanship in Congress is damaging. Perhaps, one of the things we need to think about in the election this fall is reducing extreme partisanship. Think about which candidate for any office is willing to debate and compromise.

Yesterday (August 1, 2012) a date that shall live in infamy

Yesterday (August 1, 2012) a date that shall live in infamy

According to Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.), yesterday (August 1, 2012) was a date that shall live in infamy. What terrible thing happened that made it comparable to the great loss of life on September 11, 2001 and December 7, 1941 ?

Why it was the implementation of a provision of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) ? Now most folks won’t think this is as terrible as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 or the attack on Pearl Harbor that got us into World War 2 but at least 1 republican representative thinks so.

What was this dastardly provision that is so terrible? It is the provision of preventive health services to women( avert your eyes for the rest of this sentence if you are squeamish) which includes contraception. Surely a terrible thing and a good reason for this date to live in infamy.

Here is the story of CBS News which includes a video of the Congressman. Here is an annoucement from Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services in case you are interested what this provision is actually about.

As I mentioned before this is a complicated issue but “date that shall live in infamy” is a bit over the top.

Do we improve the healthcare law or repeal and replace?

Do we improve the healthcare law or repeal and replace?

Now that the healthcare law or the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been upheld by the Supreme Court, the ball is once again in the hands of Congress.

Should we improve the law? Many people support aspects of the law but may oppose others. Perhaps they should encourage Congressmen to try for improvements. I will use the term Congressmen to include women just because “Congress persons” sounds awkward and I cannot think of a good inclusive term (Comments to suggest alternatives, anyone?) Maybe even replace those Congressmen who are not interested in improving the current healthcare law.

There are those who like the idea of repeal and replace. They would reject the law because there are parts they disagree with and trust Congress to replace it with something better. Not a very bright idea, in my opinion.

There are those who just want to repeal the law. Are they really happy with the current system? Do they think it is a good idea that many are uninsured, we have the most expensive system in the world, and certainly far from the best results? Not a good value in my opinion but then I don’t own an insurance company.

Bush tax increase

Bush tax increase

Seems to me if George W. Bush could not find a way to make his tax cuts permanent, we cannot blame the present administration or Congress for not finding a way to extend these cuts during a recession. Should any increase now be called the Bush tax increase? Or perhaps the George W. Bush delayed tax increases.

It also bothers me that the Republican minority is holding up extending these tax cuts for the vast majority of citizens. If the majority in Congress cannot find a reasonable compromise with this very stubborn minority, I would have no problem with letting the entire tax cut expire on schedule. I think that would be bad for the economy and bad for the American people but preferable to allowing a minority to dictate policy and increasing the deficit to give a larger tax break to the richest Americans.

As I understand it if the tax break is limited to the first $250,000 of income, everyone still gets a tax break. It is just that the person who makes a million a year gets the same tax break as someone making a quarter of that.

Can’t Congress reach a reasonable compromise? – higher income cut-off, estate exemptions, temporary extensions, etc. I think the uncertainties about future income and estate taxes are more causing problems than any compromise I can imagine.