See the promises made and broken in the introduction and history of FICA (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), below.
For you young people: Social Security payments today, are 12.4% of the first $90,000 an individual earns. 6.2% is deducted from the employee paycheck by the government. And, 6.2% is paid by the employer. However, that 6.2% is part of the employer’s cost of an employee. So, that is really their cost that cannot be paid to the employee. Thus, the 12.4% cost is ALL born by the employee. The employee “cost” is just more hidden taxation to deceive the average American, just like business taxes that are part of the cost of producing a product or service, which go onto the spreadsheet when calculating the profit that will justify the investment, in order to set the price. The self-employed or contract worker pays the full 12.4% straight out. Again, it is the consumer or end-user that bears the cost of the tax.
Barack Obama proposes to lift the $90,000 cap on FICA tax eligible earnings. Thus if we acknowledge that the worker bears the entire cost, someone who earns $150,000, will see a 12.4% FICA tax increase on the $60,000, or $7440 in additional taxes under Obama’s proposal. And, even adding this 12.4% to what EVERYONE in America earns over $90,000, the most optimistic liberals say that this additional revenue would almost cover (for a short period of time) the FICA shortfall that is now perched on America’s front porch. Other tax increases, benefit restrictions, and monetary inflation would still be needed to confront the established liabilities.
That is why it is so important that John McCain, who will work stronger than most to contain spending (certainly a great deal more than Bush has) is elected, and Barack Obama , who has promised many billions of dollars in new spending, is not. This urgent need for fiscal sobriety is why a strict conservative like OK Senator Tom Coburn is strongly supporting McCain, even though he has often disagreed with McCain, as many of us have: he knows that McCain is uncommonly strong against profligate spending. An Obama presidency with a Democrat-controlled Congress could make the economic woes of the Jimmy Carter years look like a picnic. Add to that thr damage of an activist judiciary generally and Supreme Court, spefically, and the potential danger to humanity and American security of an imprudent foreign policy. Vote McCain!
-------------------
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
32nd. President, Democrat
Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.
He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxe d< span class="Apple-converted-space"> on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to < SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: red">'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following:
Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th.President, Democrat
Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969
Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so thatCongress could spend it?
Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson
and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.
Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
Answer: The Democratic Party.
William Jefferson Clinton
(Bill Clinton)
42nd. President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
(Al Gore)
45th. Vice President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President
Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US .
James Earl Carter, Jr
(Jimmy Carter)
39th. President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981 Question:
Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments toimmigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
Answer: That's right!
James Earl Carter, Jr. (Jimmy Carter) and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments!
The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will Evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully Sure of what isn't so.
But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
Thomas Jefferson
3rd. President, Democrat
Term of Office: March 4, 1801 to March 4, 1809
'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.'
- Thomas Jefferson
Monday, June 30, 2008
Social Security, Obama and McCain
See the promises made and broken in the introduction and history of FICA (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), below.
For you young people: Social Security payments today, are 12.4% of the first $90,000 an individual earns. 6.2% is deducted from the employee paycheck by the government. And, 6.2% is paid by the employer. However, that 6.2% is part of the employer’s cost of an employee. So, that is really their cost that cannot be paid to the employee. Thus, the 12.4% cost is ALL born by the employee. The employee “cost” is just more hidden taxation to deceive the average American, just like business taxes that are part of the cost of producing a product or service, which go onto the spreadsheet when calculating the profit that will justify the investment, in order to set the price. The self-employed or contract worker pays the full 12.4% straight out. Again, it is the consumer or end-user that bears the cost of the tax.
Barack Obama proposes to lift the $90,000 cap on FICA tax eligible earnings. Thus if we acknowledge that the worker bears the entire cost, someone who earns $150,000, will see a 12.4% FICA tax increase on the $60,000, or $7440 in additional taxes under Obama’s proposal. And, even adding this 12.4% to what EVERYONE in America earns over $90,000, the most optimistic liberals say that this additional revenue would almost cover (for a short period of time) the FICA shortfall that is now perched on America’s front porch. Other tax increases, benefit restrictions, and monetary inflation would still be needed to confront the established liabilities.
That is why it is so important that John McCain, who will work stronger than most to contain spending (certainly a great deal more than Bush has) is elected, and Barack Obama , who has promised many billions of dollars in new spending, is not. This urgent need for fiscal sobriety is why a strict conservative like OK Senator Tom Coburn is strongly supporting McCain, even though he has often disagreed with McCain, as many of us have: he knows that McCain is uncommonly strong against profligate spending. An Obama presidency with a Democrat-controlled Congress could make the economic woes of the Jimmy Carter years look like a picnic. Add to that thr damage of an activist judiciary generally and Supreme Court, spefically, and the potential danger to humanity and American security of an imprudent foreign policy. Vote McCain!
-------------------
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
32nd. President, Democrat
Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.
He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxe d< span class="Apple-converted-space"> on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to < SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: red">'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following:
Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th.President, Democrat
Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969
Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so thatCongress could spend it?
Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson
and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.
Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
Answer: The Democratic Party.
William Jefferson Clinton
(Bill Clinton)
42nd. President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
(Al Gore)
45th. Vice President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President
Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US .
James Earl Carter, Jr
(Jimmy Carter)
39th. President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981 Question:
Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments toimmigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
Answer: That's right!
James Earl Carter, Jr. (Jimmy Carter) and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments!
The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will Evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully Sure of what isn't so.
But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
Thomas Jefferson
3rd. President, Democrat
Term of Office: March 4, 1801 to March 4, 1809
'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.'
- Thomas Jefferson
For you young people: Social Security payments today, are 12.4% of the first $90,000 an individual earns. 6.2% is deducted from the employee paycheck by the government. And, 6.2% is paid by the employer. However, that 6.2% is part of the employer’s cost of an employee. So, that is really their cost that cannot be paid to the employee. Thus, the 12.4% cost is ALL born by the employee. The employee “cost” is just more hidden taxation to deceive the average American, just like business taxes that are part of the cost of producing a product or service, which go onto the spreadsheet when calculating the profit that will justify the investment, in order to set the price. The self-employed or contract worker pays the full 12.4% straight out. Again, it is the consumer or end-user that bears the cost of the tax.
Barack Obama proposes to lift the $90,000 cap on FICA tax eligible earnings. Thus if we acknowledge that the worker bears the entire cost, someone who earns $150,000, will see a 12.4% FICA tax increase on the $60,000, or $7440 in additional taxes under Obama’s proposal. And, even adding this 12.4% to what EVERYONE in America earns over $90,000, the most optimistic liberals say that this additional revenue would almost cover (for a short period of time) the FICA shortfall that is now perched on America’s front porch. Other tax increases, benefit restrictions, and monetary inflation would still be needed to confront the established liabilities.
That is why it is so important that John McCain, who will work stronger than most to contain spending (certainly a great deal more than Bush has) is elected, and Barack Obama , who has promised many billions of dollars in new spending, is not. This urgent need for fiscal sobriety is why a strict conservative like OK Senator Tom Coburn is strongly supporting McCain, even though he has often disagreed with McCain, as many of us have: he knows that McCain is uncommonly strong against profligate spending. An Obama presidency with a Democrat-controlled Congress could make the economic woes of the Jimmy Carter years look like a picnic. Add to that thr damage of an activist judiciary generally and Supreme Court, spefically, and the potential danger to humanity and American security of an imprudent foreign policy. Vote McCain!
-------------------
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
32nd. President, Democrat
Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.
He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxe d< span class="Apple-converted-space"> on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to < SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: red">'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following:
Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th.President, Democrat
Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969
Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so thatCongress could spend it?
Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson
and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.
Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
Answer: The Democratic Party.
William Jefferson Clinton
(Bill Clinton)
42nd. President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
(Al Gore)
45th. Vice President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President
Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US .
James Earl Carter, Jr
(Jimmy Carter)
39th. President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981 Question:
Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments toimmigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
Answer: That's right!
James Earl Carter, Jr. (Jimmy Carter) and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments!
The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will Evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully Sure of what isn't so.
But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
Thomas Jefferson
3rd. President, Democrat
Term of Office: March 4, 1801 to March 4, 1809
'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.'
- Thomas Jefferson
Social Security, Obama and McCain
See the promises made and broken in the introduction and history of FICA (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), below.
For you young people: Social Security payments today, are 12.4% of the first $90,000 an individual earns. 6.2% is deducted from the employee paycheck by the government. And, 6.2% is paid by the employer. However, that 6.2% is part of the employer’s cost of an employee. So, that is really their cost that cannot be paid to the employee. Thus, the 12.4% cost is ALL born by the employee. The employee “cost” is just more hidden taxation to deceive the average American, just like business taxes that are part of the cost of producing a product or service, which go onto the spreadsheet when calculating the profit that will justify the investment, in order to set the price. The self-employed or contract worker pays the full 12.4% straight out. Again, it is the consumer or end-user that bears the cost of the tax.
Barack Obama proposes to lift the $90,000 cap on FICA tax eligible earnings. Thus if we acknowledge that the worker bears the entire cost, someone who earns $150,000, will see a 12.4% FICA tax increase on the $60,000, or $7440 in additional taxes under Obama’s proposal. And, even adding this 12.4% to what EVERYONE in America earns over $90,000, the most optimistic liberals say that this additional revenue would almost cover (for a short period of time) the FICA shortfall that is now perched on America’s front porch. Other tax increases, benefit restrictions, and monetary inflation would still be needed to confront the established liabilities.
That is why it is so important that John McCain, who will work stronger than most to contain spending (certainly a great deal more than Bush has) is elected, and Barack Obama , who has promised many billions of dollars in new spending, is not. This urgent need for fiscal sobriety is why a strict conservative like OK Senator Tom Coburn is strongly supporting McCain, even though he has often disagreed with McCain, as many of us have: he knows that McCain is uncommonly strong against profligate spending. An Obama presidency with a Democrat-controlled Congress could make the economic woes of the Jimmy Carter years look like a picnic.
-------------------
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
32nd. President, Democrat
Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.
He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxe d< span class="Apple-converted-space"> on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to < SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: red">'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following:
Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th.President, Democrat
Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969
Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so thatCongress could spend it?
Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson
and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.
Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
Answer: The Democratic Party.
William Jefferson Clinton
(Bill Clinton)
42nd. President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
(Al Gore)
45th. Vice President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President
Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US .
James Earl Carter, Jr
(Jimmy Carter)
39th. President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981 Question:
Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments toimmigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
Answer: That's right!
James Earl Carter, Jr. (Jimmy Carter) and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments!
The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will Evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully Sure of what isn't so.
But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
Thomas Jefferson
3rd. President, Democrat
Term of Office: March 4, 1801 to March 4, 1809
'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.'
- Thomas Jefferson
For you young people: Social Security payments today, are 12.4% of the first $90,000 an individual earns. 6.2% is deducted from the employee paycheck by the government. And, 6.2% is paid by the employer. However, that 6.2% is part of the employer’s cost of an employee. So, that is really their cost that cannot be paid to the employee. Thus, the 12.4% cost is ALL born by the employee. The employee “cost” is just more hidden taxation to deceive the average American, just like business taxes that are part of the cost of producing a product or service, which go onto the spreadsheet when calculating the profit that will justify the investment, in order to set the price. The self-employed or contract worker pays the full 12.4% straight out. Again, it is the consumer or end-user that bears the cost of the tax.
Barack Obama proposes to lift the $90,000 cap on FICA tax eligible earnings. Thus if we acknowledge that the worker bears the entire cost, someone who earns $150,000, will see a 12.4% FICA tax increase on the $60,000, or $7440 in additional taxes under Obama’s proposal. And, even adding this 12.4% to what EVERYONE in America earns over $90,000, the most optimistic liberals say that this additional revenue would almost cover (for a short period of time) the FICA shortfall that is now perched on America’s front porch. Other tax increases, benefit restrictions, and monetary inflation would still be needed to confront the established liabilities.
That is why it is so important that John McCain, who will work stronger than most to contain spending (certainly a great deal more than Bush has) is elected, and Barack Obama , who has promised many billions of dollars in new spending, is not. This urgent need for fiscal sobriety is why a strict conservative like OK Senator Tom Coburn is strongly supporting McCain, even though he has often disagreed with McCain, as many of us have: he knows that McCain is uncommonly strong against profligate spending. An Obama presidency with a Democrat-controlled Congress could make the economic woes of the Jimmy Carter years look like a picnic.
-------------------
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
32nd. President, Democrat
Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.
He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxe d< span class="Apple-converted-space"> on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to < SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: red">'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following:
Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th.President, Democrat
Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969
Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so thatCongress could spend it?
Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson
and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.
Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
Answer: The Democratic Party.
William Jefferson Clinton
(Bill Clinton)
42nd. President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
(Al Gore)
45th. Vice President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President
Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US .
James Earl Carter, Jr
(Jimmy Carter)
39th. President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981 Question:
Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments toimmigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
Answer: That's right!
James Earl Carter, Jr. (Jimmy Carter) and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments!
The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will Evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully Sure of what isn't so.
But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
Thomas Jefferson
3rd. President, Democrat
Term of Office: March 4, 1801 to March 4, 1809
'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.'
- Thomas Jefferson
Friday, June 27, 2008
Gay Marriage And Considering Nuance
I wrote most of this last week, but was distracted with other things. I have intended for weeks and really months, now, to change the approach of the discussion on my Blog, on which I have been VERY inactive recently. Of course, I spent most of the last year advocating for Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign and defending him against what I’m certain were ill-founded and often disingenuous criticisms. I think I have been to a great extent letting the air out and recuperating from the campaign, occasionally posting on why it is critical for America’s future in almost all respects, for conservatives to support John McCain despite his occasional philosophical infidelities.
And, in the past few weeks I have begun a program of physical and occupational therapy to deal with the weaknesses and impediments that have accrued over my 15 years with multiple sclerosis. But, I want to write about the matter of the “legalization” in California of gay marriage beginning last week, Tuesday June 17. I enclose “legalization” in quotes because judges don’t make law; they interpret them and all too often MISinterpret them. This situation was foisted upon the California people via a capricious and presumptuous ruling by the California Supreme Court, defying the expressed will of the people, EVEN IN CALIFORNIA!
I think it is apt for me to write about this for a few reasons which are paradigmatic of some overall concerns of mine:
1) In fact, I do think homosexual marriage is a bad idea, for the health of both the society and the homosexual individuals themselves, but that is not my primary concern or frankly not even in play in this question.
2) Of serious concern is the judicial presumption over the will of the people that was expressed in the political process, when there is no issue of basic constitutional principle. And actually, the passivity of the people in rolling over and accepting it for no better reason that I can discern than that some very foolish people in media tell them that they are obligated to, may be an even greater concern.
3) This is also an issue like some others on which I do not have the conventional reflex of many people who consider themselves “conservative.” In fact, I was and am an enthusiastic supporter of Mike Huckabee who himself, quite expectedly supports a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I DO NOT. Oh, I understand that a legal case can and undoubtedly will be pressed for other states to recognize these marriages under the “full faith and credit” clause of The Constitution. That would be a misapplication of that provision. And, the proper course to confront it would not be an amendment to the US Constitution, but for an unwilling state to simply refuse to submit to any such ruling: as someone once said, “Just say ‘No!’”. Frankly, after over 34 years of quivering under a contrived judicial edict that supposedly commands national accession to unrestricted abortion, it’s long past time for a state to stand up and say, “Enough! The Constitution is not an all-purpose medium for any outrageous dictum, and The United States has no kings, certainly not incognito as judges!”
Addressing this last matter first, consider two things: a) the federal government and certainly the US Constitution have no jurisdiction over marriage and should not. And to introduce such a matter to the US Constitution would severely diminish the integrity of that document. And b) to cede the authority of amending the US Constitutional to define marriage the way you like it, today, is to cede the authority of a US Constitutional amendment to define it any other way, tomorrow. Take a step back: Do you really dismiss the possibility that popular consensus might change?
The US Constitution should have nothing to say about what constitutes a marriage. Honestly, I’m anything but enthusiastic about even a state government establishment of marriage. We see marriage as an institution before God, not the state. And that confusion diminishes marriage. The worst part of our marriage convention as when a minister says, “And now, by the authority vested in me by the state of…” WAIT A MINUTE! The state? If a marriage is an oath only before a state, it could be no surprise that people might take it lightly. Breaking your vows won’t even earn you a citation! And, who knows how a changing and sliding people might one day define marriage?
But, I do grant the authority of a sovereign state to determine its own social practices how it chooses…by a democratic political process, NOT by the arbitrary impulse of judges. So, it is for Californians to decide if they will amend their constitution. And, in my state, I would not support gay marriage. As things stand, the preferred route would be to impeach some judges.
When I launch into this new effort I will in addition to describing my experience and contemplation of MS for the consideration of sufferers and their friends and families also discuss my thoughts on many social, political, philosophical, and theological aspects of life. I have an atypical inclination to engage such abstract thoughts. And I often consider such fine distinctions as those expressed above. I am quite aware that most discussions, particularly political ones do not and cannot engage such nuance.
For example, when Huckabee says he supports constitutional amendments on marriage and human life, I consider that that the shorthand is that he supports a TRADITIONAL definition of marriage and thinks abortion is unconstitutional and I agree. I WOULD support a constitutional amendment clarifying the sanctity of human life. But, the amendment process is such that if it could genuinely be accomplished, the social problem would have already been solved. If such a majority was so explicit in its opposition to abortion, they would probably have already acted to stop it. As of today, many will record their opposition to abortion. But, few will pause to do very much about it.
But, often the nuances of issues merit consideration, short attention spans and sound-byte mass-communications, notwithstanding. To break them down to a more bite-sized offering presents a daunting task. But, it is my great fortune and privilege that I haven’t too much more pressing to do.
And, in the past few weeks I have begun a program of physical and occupational therapy to deal with the weaknesses and impediments that have accrued over my 15 years with multiple sclerosis. But, I want to write about the matter of the “legalization” in California of gay marriage beginning last week, Tuesday June 17. I enclose “legalization” in quotes because judges don’t make law; they interpret them and all too often MISinterpret them. This situation was foisted upon the California people via a capricious and presumptuous ruling by the California Supreme Court, defying the expressed will of the people, EVEN IN CALIFORNIA!
I think it is apt for me to write about this for a few reasons which are paradigmatic of some overall concerns of mine:
1) In fact, I do think homosexual marriage is a bad idea, for the health of both the society and the homosexual individuals themselves, but that is not my primary concern or frankly not even in play in this question.
2) Of serious concern is the judicial presumption over the will of the people that was expressed in the political process, when there is no issue of basic constitutional principle. And actually, the passivity of the people in rolling over and accepting it for no better reason that I can discern than that some very foolish people in media tell them that they are obligated to, may be an even greater concern.
3) This is also an issue like some others on which I do not have the conventional reflex of many people who consider themselves “conservative.” In fact, I was and am an enthusiastic supporter of Mike Huckabee who himself, quite expectedly supports a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I DO NOT. Oh, I understand that a legal case can and undoubtedly will be pressed for other states to recognize these marriages under the “full faith and credit” clause of The Constitution. That would be a misapplication of that provision. And, the proper course to confront it would not be an amendment to the US Constitution, but for an unwilling state to simply refuse to submit to any such ruling: as someone once said, “Just say ‘No!’”. Frankly, after over 34 years of quivering under a contrived judicial edict that supposedly commands national accession to unrestricted abortion, it’s long past time for a state to stand up and say, “Enough! The Constitution is not an all-purpose medium for any outrageous dictum, and The United States has no kings, certainly not incognito as judges!”
Addressing this last matter first, consider two things: a) the federal government and certainly the US Constitution have no jurisdiction over marriage and should not. And to introduce such a matter to the US Constitution would severely diminish the integrity of that document. And b) to cede the authority of amending the US Constitutional to define marriage the way you like it, today, is to cede the authority of a US Constitutional amendment to define it any other way, tomorrow. Take a step back: Do you really dismiss the possibility that popular consensus might change?
The US Constitution should have nothing to say about what constitutes a marriage. Honestly, I’m anything but enthusiastic about even a state government establishment of marriage. We see marriage as an institution before God, not the state. And that confusion diminishes marriage. The worst part of our marriage convention as when a minister says, “And now, by the authority vested in me by the state of…” WAIT A MINUTE! The state? If a marriage is an oath only before a state, it could be no surprise that people might take it lightly. Breaking your vows won’t even earn you a citation! And, who knows how a changing and sliding people might one day define marriage?
But, I do grant the authority of a sovereign state to determine its own social practices how it chooses…by a democratic political process, NOT by the arbitrary impulse of judges. So, it is for Californians to decide if they will amend their constitution. And, in my state, I would not support gay marriage. As things stand, the preferred route would be to impeach some judges.
When I launch into this new effort I will in addition to describing my experience and contemplation of MS for the consideration of sufferers and their friends and families also discuss my thoughts on many social, political, philosophical, and theological aspects of life. I have an atypical inclination to engage such abstract thoughts. And I often consider such fine distinctions as those expressed above. I am quite aware that most discussions, particularly political ones do not and cannot engage such nuance.
For example, when Huckabee says he supports constitutional amendments on marriage and human life, I consider that that the shorthand is that he supports a TRADITIONAL definition of marriage and thinks abortion is unconstitutional and I agree. I WOULD support a constitutional amendment clarifying the sanctity of human life. But, the amendment process is such that if it could genuinely be accomplished, the social problem would have already been solved. If such a majority was so explicit in its opposition to abortion, they would probably have already acted to stop it. As of today, many will record their opposition to abortion. But, few will pause to do very much about it.
But, often the nuances of issues merit consideration, short attention spans and sound-byte mass-communications, notwithstanding. To break them down to a more bite-sized offering presents a daunting task. But, it is my great fortune and privilege that I haven’t too much more pressing to do.
I wrote most of this last week, but was distracted with other things. I have intended for weeks and really months, now, to change the approach of the discussion on my Blog, on which I have been VERY inactive recently. Of course, I spent most of the last year advocating for Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign and defending him against what I’m certain were ill-founded and often disingenuous criticisms. I think I have been to a great extent letting the air out and recuperating from the campaign, occasionally posting on why it is critical for America’s future in almost all respects, for conservatives to support John McCain despite his occasional philosophical infidelities.
And, in the past few weeks I have begun a program of physical and occupational therapy to deal with the weaknesses and impediments that have accrued over my 15 years with multiple sclerosis. But, I want to write about the matter of the “legalization” in California of gay marriage beginning last week, Tuesday June 17. I enclose “legalization” in quotes because judges don’t make law; they interpret them and all too often MISinterpret them. This situation was foisted upon the California people via a capricious and presumptuous ruling by the California Supreme Court, defying the expressed will of the people, EVEN IN CALIFORNIA!
I think it is apt for me to write about this for a few reasons which are paradigmatic of some overall concerns of mine:
1) In fact, I do think homosexual marriage is a bad idea, for the health of both the society and the homosexual individuals themselves, but that is not my primary concern or frankly not even in play in this question.
2) Of serious concern is the judicial presumption over the will of the people that was expressed in the political process, when there is no issue of basic constitutional principle. And actually, the passivity of the people in rolling over and accepting it for no better reason that I can discern than that some very foolish people in media tell them that they are obligated to, may be an even greater concern.
3) This is also an issue like some others on which I do not have the conventional reflex of many people who consider themselves “conservative.” In fact, I was and am an enthusiastic supporter of Mike Huckabee who himself, quite expectedly supports a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I DO NOT. Oh, I understand that a legal case can and undoubtedly will be pressed for other states to recognize these marriages under the “full faith and credit” clause of The Constitution. That would be a misapplication of that provision. And, the proper course to confront it would not be an amendment to the US Constitution, but for an unwilling state to simply refuse to submit to any such ruling: as someone once said, “Just say ‘No!’”. Frankly, after over 34 years of quivering under a contrived judicial edict that supposedly commands national accession to unrestricted abortion, it’s long past time for a state to stand up and say, “Enough! The Constitution is not an all-purpose medium for any outrageous dictum, and The United States has no kings, certainly not incognito as judges!”
Addressing this last matter first, consider two things: a) the federal government and certainly the US Constitution have no jurisdiction over marriage and should not. And to introduce such a matter to the US Constitution would severely diminish the integrity of that document. And b) to cede the authority of amending the US Constitutional to define marriage the way you like it, today, is to cede the authority of a US Constitutional amendment to define it any other way, tomorrow. Take a step back: Do you really dismiss the possibility that popular consensus might change?
The US Constitution should have nothing to say about what constitutes a marriage. Honestly, I’m anything but enthusiastic about even a state government establishment of marriage. We see marriage as an institution before God, not the state. And that confusion diminishes marriage. The worst part of our marriage convention as when a minister says, “And now, by the authority vested in me by the state of…” WAIT A MINUTE! The state? If a marriage is an oath only before a state, it could be no surprise that people might take it lightly. Breaking your vows won’t even earn you a citation! And, who knows how a changing and sliding people might one day define marriage?
But, I do grant the authority of a sovereign state to determine its own social practices how it chooses…by a democratic political process, NOT by the arbitrary impulse of judges. So, it is for Californians to decide if they will amend their constitution. And, in my state, I would not support gay marriage. As things stand, the preferred route would be to impeach some judges.
When I launch into this new effort I will in addition to describing my experience and contemplation of MS for the consideration of sufferers and their friends and families also discuss my thoughts on many social, political, philosophical, and theological aspects of life. I have an atypical inclination to engage such abstract thoughts. And I often consider such fine distinctions as those expressed above. I am quite aware that most discussions, particularly political ones do not and cannot engage such nuance.
For example, when Huckabee says he supports constitutional amendments on marriage and human life, I consider that that the shorthand is that he supports a TRADITIONAL definition of marriage and thinks abortion is unconstitutional and I agree. I WOULD support a constitutional amendment clarifying the sanctity of human life. But, the amendment process is such that if it could genuinely be accomplished, the social problem would have already been solved. If such a majority was so explicit in its opposition to abortion, they would probably have already acted to stop it. As of today, many will record their opposition to abortion. But, few will pause to do very much about it.
But, often the nuances of issues merit consideration, short attention spans and sound-byte mass-communications, notwithstanding. To break them down to a more bite-sized offering presents a daunting task. But, it is my great fortune and privilege that I haven’t too much more pressing to do.
And, in the past few weeks I have begun a program of physical and occupational therapy to deal with the weaknesses and impediments that have accrued over my 15 years with multiple sclerosis. But, I want to write about the matter of the “legalization” in California of gay marriage beginning last week, Tuesday June 17. I enclose “legalization” in quotes because judges don’t make law; they interpret them and all too often MISinterpret them. This situation was foisted upon the California people via a capricious and presumptuous ruling by the California Supreme Court, defying the expressed will of the people, EVEN IN CALIFORNIA!
I think it is apt for me to write about this for a few reasons which are paradigmatic of some overall concerns of mine:
1) In fact, I do think homosexual marriage is a bad idea, for the health of both the society and the homosexual individuals themselves, but that is not my primary concern or frankly not even in play in this question.
2) Of serious concern is the judicial presumption over the will of the people that was expressed in the political process, when there is no issue of basic constitutional principle. And actually, the passivity of the people in rolling over and accepting it for no better reason that I can discern than that some very foolish people in media tell them that they are obligated to, may be an even greater concern.
3) This is also an issue like some others on which I do not have the conventional reflex of many people who consider themselves “conservative.” In fact, I was and am an enthusiastic supporter of Mike Huckabee who himself, quite expectedly supports a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I DO NOT. Oh, I understand that a legal case can and undoubtedly will be pressed for other states to recognize these marriages under the “full faith and credit” clause of The Constitution. That would be a misapplication of that provision. And, the proper course to confront it would not be an amendment to the US Constitution, but for an unwilling state to simply refuse to submit to any such ruling: as someone once said, “Just say ‘No!’”. Frankly, after over 34 years of quivering under a contrived judicial edict that supposedly commands national accession to unrestricted abortion, it’s long past time for a state to stand up and say, “Enough! The Constitution is not an all-purpose medium for any outrageous dictum, and The United States has no kings, certainly not incognito as judges!”
Addressing this last matter first, consider two things: a) the federal government and certainly the US Constitution have no jurisdiction over marriage and should not. And to introduce such a matter to the US Constitution would severely diminish the integrity of that document. And b) to cede the authority of amending the US Constitutional to define marriage the way you like it, today, is to cede the authority of a US Constitutional amendment to define it any other way, tomorrow. Take a step back: Do you really dismiss the possibility that popular consensus might change?
The US Constitution should have nothing to say about what constitutes a marriage. Honestly, I’m anything but enthusiastic about even a state government establishment of marriage. We see marriage as an institution before God, not the state. And that confusion diminishes marriage. The worst part of our marriage convention as when a minister says, “And now, by the authority vested in me by the state of…” WAIT A MINUTE! The state? If a marriage is an oath only before a state, it could be no surprise that people might take it lightly. Breaking your vows won’t even earn you a citation! And, who knows how a changing and sliding people might one day define marriage?
But, I do grant the authority of a sovereign state to determine its own social practices how it chooses…by a democratic political process, NOT by the arbitrary impulse of judges. So, it is for Californians to decide if they will amend their constitution. And, in my state, I would not support gay marriage. As things stand, the preferred route would be to impeach some judges.
When I launch into this new effort I will in addition to describing my experience and contemplation of MS for the consideration of sufferers and their friends and families also discuss my thoughts on many social, political, philosophical, and theological aspects of life. I have an atypical inclination to engage such abstract thoughts. And I often consider such fine distinctions as those expressed above. I am quite aware that most discussions, particularly political ones do not and cannot engage such nuance.
For example, when Huckabee says he supports constitutional amendments on marriage and human life, I consider that that the shorthand is that he supports a TRADITIONAL definition of marriage and thinks abortion is unconstitutional and I agree. I WOULD support a constitutional amendment clarifying the sanctity of human life. But, the amendment process is such that if it could genuinely be accomplished, the social problem would have already been solved. If such a majority was so explicit in its opposition to abortion, they would probably have already acted to stop it. As of today, many will record their opposition to abortion. But, few will pause to do very much about it.
But, often the nuances of issues merit consideration, short attention spans and sound-byte mass-communications, notwithstanding. To break them down to a more bite-sized offering presents a daunting task. But, it is my great fortune and privilege that I haven’t too much more pressing to do.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Consensus And Truth
Sometimes I jot down notes about ideas that are churning in my mind, for later consideration. But, sometimes it seems to demand immediate attention; perhaps because it is directly relevant to recent personal or social situations. In this case it is both.
At this point in my life, the changes that have overtaken pop dialogue on what really are just a handful or fundamental ideas, have so saturated discussion that false implications that are deduced from them arise relentlessly. And, if your point of departure differs from the popular sentiment on those few fundamental axioms, you will find yourself on the other side in the details, incessantly.
I use the qualifying “pop” (I even use the “pop” contraction of “popular,” which literally means “of the people”), because I refer not necessarily to the public, but to the organs of mass deliberation in American and most Western culture: television, movies, popular journals, even public education textbooks and education environments. In fact, most Americans have sentiments that differ somewhat with many of these pop-culture premises. Most notably, typically even where the possible existence of God is granted, the relevance of God and implications of God are nearly always assumed to be irrelevant, indeed inappropriate, to deliberations of public principle and policy.
The accompanying fundamental assumptions about human nature and social and psychological matters are related to or derivative of this one. While in their personal sentiments most Americans believe differently, nevertheless the drumbeat of such thinking in “pop” consumption has the effect of dragging public sentiment in its wake, even if as pulled with locked feet through the sand.
The immediate question is the relevance of consensus (or perceived consensus) to the indication of truth in an assertion. You should already have perceived that to me such consensus means little. Especially when ultimately transcendent and fixed principles are involved, “consensus” is a feeble indicator of truth and a miserable substitution for argument. Yet, the appeal is instinctively made in case after case, my own publicly educated child has more than once explained to me that “no one thinks like you do.” I’m well aware of that. And, even if being in agreement with the “pop” consensus was an urgent concern of mine, reason dictates that it is no necessary indication of truth.
Certainly, a consensus perception in your own community is an indication that something should be given due consideration. But, it’s a suggestion of something to consider and weigh. It emphatically does not herald NOT necessarily herald truth. Thinking about it, it seemed more that consensus should be more like a road sign that says, “Deer Crossing.” “Dear Crossing” does not mean, “Slam On Your Brakes Because There Will Surely Be Deer!” No. But, slow down and take a look.
And in our case, we have more than our own confrontation with truth or deer, as the case may be, to be concerned about. We must carry on and productively engage the people who embrace this perspective, irrespective of whether we agree.
More often than not today, I do not agree. And, that does not surprise me. Again, if the basic premises are mistaken, sound logic will lead to mistaken conclusions. For me, if you were going to evaluate ideas solely on the feeble basis of consensus, and given the record and perspective of so many tone-setters, I would be more likely to assume the consensus wrong. I may spend the rest of my life working on engaging those with whom I disagree.
At this point in my life, the changes that have overtaken pop dialogue on what really are just a handful or fundamental ideas, have so saturated discussion that false implications that are deduced from them arise relentlessly. And, if your point of departure differs from the popular sentiment on those few fundamental axioms, you will find yourself on the other side in the details, incessantly.
I use the qualifying “pop” (I even use the “pop” contraction of “popular,” which literally means “of the people”), because I refer not necessarily to the public, but to the organs of mass deliberation in American and most Western culture: television, movies, popular journals, even public education textbooks and education environments. In fact, most Americans have sentiments that differ somewhat with many of these pop-culture premises. Most notably, typically even where the possible existence of God is granted, the relevance of God and implications of God are nearly always assumed to be irrelevant, indeed inappropriate, to deliberations of public principle and policy.
The accompanying fundamental assumptions about human nature and social and psychological matters are related to or derivative of this one. While in their personal sentiments most Americans believe differently, nevertheless the drumbeat of such thinking in “pop” consumption has the effect of dragging public sentiment in its wake, even if as pulled with locked feet through the sand.
The immediate question is the relevance of consensus (or perceived consensus) to the indication of truth in an assertion. You should already have perceived that to me such consensus means little. Especially when ultimately transcendent and fixed principles are involved, “consensus” is a feeble indicator of truth and a miserable substitution for argument. Yet, the appeal is instinctively made in case after case, my own publicly educated child has more than once explained to me that “no one thinks like you do.” I’m well aware of that. And, even if being in agreement with the “pop” consensus was an urgent concern of mine, reason dictates that it is no necessary indication of truth.
Certainly, a consensus perception in your own community is an indication that something should be given due consideration. But, it’s a suggestion of something to consider and weigh. It emphatically does not herald NOT necessarily herald truth. Thinking about it, it seemed more that consensus should be more like a road sign that says, “Deer Crossing.” “Dear Crossing” does not mean, “Slam On Your Brakes Because There Will Surely Be Deer!” No. But, slow down and take a look.
And in our case, we have more than our own confrontation with truth or deer, as the case may be, to be concerned about. We must carry on and productively engage the people who embrace this perspective, irrespective of whether we agree.
More often than not today, I do not agree. And, that does not surprise me. Again, if the basic premises are mistaken, sound logic will lead to mistaken conclusions. For me, if you were going to evaluate ideas solely on the feeble basis of consensus, and given the record and perspective of so many tone-setters, I would be more likely to assume the consensus wrong. I may spend the rest of my life working on engaging those with whom I disagree.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Mother Jones and The Fair Tax
I have some comments on gay marriages, which began taking place in California on Wednesday June 18. It raises some relevant questions and an example of my occasional departure from the boilerplate “conservative” positions. I used quotes because I think many boilerplate “conservative” positions are not necessarily consonant with a conservative philosophy but mainly sentimental reactions, which is all that liberals often think conservatism is, anyway. But, Mother Jones posted an article on Huckabee and The Fair Tax on Tuesday: Mike Huckabee's Fair Tax Fallacies (I think The Fair Tax should be made a flagship Republican issue (just another idea that John McCain is not yet on board with – and yes, I’m supporting McCain enthusiastically), and this article raises some standard misguided objections, so I’m posting this, first. A couple of points in this article are legitimate things to consider, though the fear exaggerates the reality. But, mostly, assuming the article is genuine(?), it overlooks and misrepresents a number of factors. Here is the comment I left at the MJ web site:
First, there are statements that countermand each other. The article falls to the standard liberal concern that it is "regressive," because lower-income people must spend more on essentials. This overlooks the obvious fact that people have more extravagant lifestyles precisely because they spend more, and thus will pay higher taxes. Taxes will be a lot higher on BMW's than on a Ford Taurus for example, never mind on planes, boats, and travel, for only a few examples. If people save on taxes by saving or investing, more power to them and more power for society: savings and investment (jobs in liberal-speak) are encouraged.
Later, the slip of the writer's liberal perspective is showing when the article frets the possibility of companies pocketing their tax savings rather than passing it on to the consumer. No one with the barest comprehension of how markets work would raise such a silly idea. Companies will and should always try to maximize profits, but they don't set prices, markets do. And, the "prebate" goes to all citizens, so middle-class taxes are lowered, too.
You concede that economic activity will increase, but greatly understate the probable extent. No income tax for doing business in The United States? Recall that Reagan's tax cuts doubled federal revenues over his term (unfortunately, federal spending tripled). But, if that was an economic surge, The Fair Tax might provoke an economic avalanche. (i.e., economic activity and opportunity on steroids)
This is not just good; the fact is that it is now essential. We are a short distance (the next term will realize it, from a tsunami of entitlement liability arriving for an over-promising federal government. Even I doubt that even the Fair Tax's rush of economic activity will cover the drastic revenue shortfall. In brief, The Fair Tax is the least we can do, given the mistakes made. Frantic and futile foggy-headed government agents will lunge at alternative answers to meet the demand by raising taxes, restricting benefits and inflating away the value of the dollar to pay its obligations with cheap money, all of which will in short fashion make matters worse and increase hardship.
Finally, the article lapses into a typical cynical analysis about a politician's political motivation. Another, straightforward explanation for Huckabee's support of The Fair Tax is the peculiar one which I also embrace: HE ACTUALLY BELIEVES THAT THE FAIR TAX WILL BE GOOD FOR AMERICA AND AMERICANS! (Difficult as that may be to contemplate)
It is true that a vigorous system must be put in place to insure that all imported items bear the same tax to maintain a level playing field for American business. And, it's true that barter and caution in consumption will be encouraged. They used to call that "thrift." Now, it's a BAD thing?
Oh, and speaking of terms, a 5% growth in spending across Huckabee's over ten years as governor of Arkansas, would be around the rate of inflation and a little over 500 million dollars per year. Can you do a little math? That fits your numbers almost exactly. The fact is that taxes as a percentage of income were approximately the same at the beginning and end of Huckabee's governorship. You know what they say about how statistics can be presented… In brief the criticisms of The Club for Growth were mercenary rewards for CfG contributors with political or personal anti-Huckabee interests. Romney's and Thompson's criticisms were transparently political.
In truth, with no Fair Tax, economic travails appear utterly unavoidable.
First, there are statements that countermand each other. The article falls to the standard liberal concern that it is "regressive," because lower-income people must spend more on essentials. This overlooks the obvious fact that people have more extravagant lifestyles precisely because they spend more, and thus will pay higher taxes. Taxes will be a lot higher on BMW's than on a Ford Taurus for example, never mind on planes, boats, and travel, for only a few examples. If people save on taxes by saving or investing, more power to them and more power for society: savings and investment (jobs in liberal-speak) are encouraged.
Later, the slip of the writer's liberal perspective is showing when the article frets the possibility of companies pocketing their tax savings rather than passing it on to the consumer. No one with the barest comprehension of how markets work would raise such a silly idea. Companies will and should always try to maximize profits, but they don't set prices, markets do. And, the "prebate" goes to all citizens, so middle-class taxes are lowered, too.
You concede that economic activity will increase, but greatly understate the probable extent. No income tax for doing business in The United States? Recall that Reagan's tax cuts doubled federal revenues over his term (unfortunately, federal spending tripled). But, if that was an economic surge, The Fair Tax might provoke an economic avalanche. (i.e., economic activity and opportunity on steroids)
This is not just good; the fact is that it is now essential. We are a short distance (the next term will realize it, from a tsunami of entitlement liability arriving for an over-promising federal government. Even I doubt that even the Fair Tax's rush of economic activity will cover the drastic revenue shortfall. In brief, The Fair Tax is the least we can do, given the mistakes made. Frantic and futile foggy-headed government agents will lunge at alternative answers to meet the demand by raising taxes, restricting benefits and inflating away the value of the dollar to pay its obligations with cheap money, all of which will in short fashion make matters worse and increase hardship.
Finally, the article lapses into a typical cynical analysis about a politician's political motivation. Another, straightforward explanation for Huckabee's support of The Fair Tax is the peculiar one which I also embrace: HE ACTUALLY BELIEVES THAT THE FAIR TAX WILL BE GOOD FOR AMERICA AND AMERICANS! (Difficult as that may be to contemplate)
It is true that a vigorous system must be put in place to insure that all imported items bear the same tax to maintain a level playing field for American business. And, it's true that barter and caution in consumption will be encouraged. They used to call that "thrift." Now, it's a BAD thing?
Oh, and speaking of terms, a 5% growth in spending across Huckabee's over ten years as governor of Arkansas, would be around the rate of inflation and a little over 500 million dollars per year. Can you do a little math? That fits your numbers almost exactly. The fact is that taxes as a percentage of income were approximately the same at the beginning and end of Huckabee's governorship. You know what they say about how statistics can be presented… In brief the criticisms of The Club for Growth were mercenary rewards for CfG contributors with political or personal anti-Huckabee interests. Romney's and Thompson's criticisms were transparently political.
In truth, with no Fair Tax, economic travails appear utterly unavoidable.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Published Shot At Fair Tax Finds Only Air
Minnesota’s http://www.twincities.com/opinion/ci_9436854 posted an article by Paul Mulshine of The Star-Ledger of Newark, New Jersey on Saturday. It correctly pointed up the impending entitlement crisis and then missed the point in asserting that The Fair Tax that Huckabee supports will not fix it, calling it, “the real bridge to nowhere.” Here is the article and the response I left at the site.
So there's your real bridge to nowhere
By Paul Mulshine
Article Last Updated: 05/31/2008 04:24:03 PM CDT
Want to know what I never want to hear about again? The bridge to nowhere, that's what. Throughout this primary election season, which limps to a merciful end Tuesday, I have heard politicians pontificating about how they oppose building that bridge in Alaska.
I would much prefer to hear the pols talk about the one issue that looms above all others in terms of importance. Try to guess what it is. It's not the Iraq war. It's not the price of gas. It's not abortion, guns or gay marriage.
Give up? The biggest issue facing the next president of the United States is that the country is broke. Or at least it would be if it were a business. The accumulated debt of the United States exceeds its revenue by so much that if it were a corporation, the federal government would be in bankruptcy court.
You won't hear about this from politicians for one simple reason: Most of that debt is for programs promised to current and future retirees. Social Security and Medicare are too popular to cut. But they're too expensive to fund. So politicians ignore the problem.
Accountants worry about it, however. If you understand numbers, as Sheila Weinberg does, then you understand that the country is on its way to becoming a banana republic, a place where you need a knapsack just to carry currency. In Latin America years ago, I once visited such a country. I needed an inch-thick pile of bills just to buy breakfast, and breakfast cost only 75 cents in American money.
I don't want my kids to inherit such an economy. Weinberg feels the same about her kids. That's why she got involved with the Institute for Truth in Accounting, an Illinois-based group that would like to see government at all levels adopt "accrual accounting" as the heart of its budget process.
In traditional government accounting, politicians can promise endless future benefits while paying only a tiny portion upfront. But in accrual accounting, the pols would have to put aside enough money in a trust fund immediately to cover future promises.
If the U.S. had followed that system, the trust fund for Social Security and Medicare would need an immediate infusion of $54 trillion, Weinberg said. That's a lot of dough.
We ran up this debt because pols of both parties voted for popular programs without raising taxes to cover them. A classic was that prescription drug program adopted in the first term of the Bush administration.
"When they passed the prescription drug program, they should have sent a bill for $25,000 to every American," says Weinberg. "They should have asked, 'Do you want that? Then you need to send a check for $25,000 to start funding it.' "
Instead, the pols just added another $8 trillion in unfunded liability to a Medicare system that was already in the red.
But imagine for a second that the pols faced this problem honestly and decided to raise revenue to pay for their promises. How much would taxes have to rise?
The Congressional Budget Office was recently asked that question by Rep. Paul Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin who is one of the few politicians willing to talk about the problem. In a letter to Ryan last month, the CBO said the income tax would have to more than double to offset entitlement expenses. That would mean the tax rate on income now in the 25 percent bracket — where many middle-class Americans find themselves — would rise to a staggering 63 percent. The top rate would have to rise from 35 percent to 83 percent.
To look at it another way, consider this in terms of GOP presidential contender Mike Huckabee's so-called "fair tax," a national sales tax of about 23 percent. Candidate Huckabee proposed that tax as a substitute for the income tax. But to balance the budget honestly, a President Huckabee would need to impose that big sales tax while also keeping the income tax.
Try to imagine Huckabee — or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John McCain, for that matter — proposing such a huge tax hike. That's about as likely as any one of them proposing that we end Social Security and Medicare.
This is one area where the true spirit of bipartisanship reigns supreme. Both parties want to pass this problem to the next generation. So there's your real bridge to nowhere. And every young person in America is going to have to cross it.
Paul Mulshine is a columnist for the Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J. His e-mail address is pmulshine@hotmail.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would describe myself as primarily pro-life, in that I think that the establishment and adoption of disrespect for the foundational respect for life signals the onset of a progressive decline of civil society. However, it is quite correct that the onslaught of entitlement liabilities that are now at hand, represent imminent economic calamity. And, I am amazed at how little (in fact none, that I can see) attention is being paid to this matter in this election season. It doesn't take a genius to see this tsunami, the leading curl of which we are now perched directly below. Any serious candidate must be aware of the crisis that the new president will face.
I assume that a Democratic president will just blame Bush for it to justify the necessity to do all three short-term supposed solutions: dramatically raise taxes, cut and/or ration benefits, and hyper-inflate the dollar, al of which in the big picture will actually exacerbate the problem and probably be followed by a more dramatic socialization of the economy. This would be called "soaking the wealthy corporations, but in fact will be a bon to established corporations, imposing taxes and regulations that they can afford, but potential competition cannot. That is what socialism is: the alliance of big business and government.
McCain probably sees this impending threat, but knows it would be politically treacherous to talk about. But at least he is assertive about the urgent need to curtail extravagant spending, which is why Tom Coburn, the most conservative US Senator supports him enthusiastically, despite McCain's other conservative incoherencies. And, so do I, though I assertively opposed McCain in 2000 and voted 3rd party in 2000 and 2004.
And, The Fair Tax is the only way to ease, even if it doesn't totally avert the crisis. And, not because a calculation of revenue based on current economic activity will solve the problem. In fact, the very suggestion is absurd: other things being equal, the change is supposed to be revenue neutral. But, it is expected that other things will not be equal: the change will bring a surge in revenue from both new economic activity and previously untaxed activity.
Is The Fair Tax the complete solution to the problem? It probably will not, because the problem is so unbelievably huge. Bit in fact, it is an essential start to addressing the problem: if The Fair Tax doesn't "cure" it, no other possible course will even make a tiny ding in the problem.
So there's your real bridge to nowhere
By Paul Mulshine
Article Last Updated: 05/31/2008 04:24:03 PM CDT
Want to know what I never want to hear about again? The bridge to nowhere, that's what. Throughout this primary election season, which limps to a merciful end Tuesday, I have heard politicians pontificating about how they oppose building that bridge in Alaska.
I would much prefer to hear the pols talk about the one issue that looms above all others in terms of importance. Try to guess what it is. It's not the Iraq war. It's not the price of gas. It's not abortion, guns or gay marriage.
Give up? The biggest issue facing the next president of the United States is that the country is broke. Or at least it would be if it were a business. The accumulated debt of the United States exceeds its revenue by so much that if it were a corporation, the federal government would be in bankruptcy court.
You won't hear about this from politicians for one simple reason: Most of that debt is for programs promised to current and future retirees. Social Security and Medicare are too popular to cut. But they're too expensive to fund. So politicians ignore the problem.
Accountants worry about it, however. If you understand numbers, as Sheila Weinberg does, then you understand that the country is on its way to becoming a banana republic, a place where you need a knapsack just to carry currency. In Latin America years ago, I once visited such a country. I needed an inch-thick pile of bills just to buy breakfast, and breakfast cost only 75 cents in American money.
I don't want my kids to inherit such an economy. Weinberg feels the same about her kids. That's why she got involved with the Institute for Truth in Accounting, an Illinois-based group that would like to see government at all levels adopt "accrual accounting" as the heart of its budget process.
In traditional government accounting, politicians can promise endless future benefits while paying only a tiny portion upfront. But in accrual accounting, the pols would have to put aside enough money in a trust fund immediately to cover future promises.
If the U.S. had followed that system, the trust fund for Social Security and Medicare would need an immediate infusion of $54 trillion, Weinberg said. That's a lot of dough.
We ran up this debt because pols of both parties voted for popular programs without raising taxes to cover them. A classic was that prescription drug program adopted in the first term of the Bush administration.
"When they passed the prescription drug program, they should have sent a bill for $25,000 to every American," says Weinberg. "They should have asked, 'Do you want that? Then you need to send a check for $25,000 to start funding it.' "
Instead, the pols just added another $8 trillion in unfunded liability to a Medicare system that was already in the red.
But imagine for a second that the pols faced this problem honestly and decided to raise revenue to pay for their promises. How much would taxes have to rise?
The Congressional Budget Office was recently asked that question by Rep. Paul Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin who is one of the few politicians willing to talk about the problem. In a letter to Ryan last month, the CBO said the income tax would have to more than double to offset entitlement expenses. That would mean the tax rate on income now in the 25 percent bracket — where many middle-class Americans find themselves — would rise to a staggering 63 percent. The top rate would have to rise from 35 percent to 83 percent.
To look at it another way, consider this in terms of GOP presidential contender Mike Huckabee's so-called "fair tax," a national sales tax of about 23 percent. Candidate Huckabee proposed that tax as a substitute for the income tax. But to balance the budget honestly, a President Huckabee would need to impose that big sales tax while also keeping the income tax.
Try to imagine Huckabee — or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John McCain, for that matter — proposing such a huge tax hike. That's about as likely as any one of them proposing that we end Social Security and Medicare.
This is one area where the true spirit of bipartisanship reigns supreme. Both parties want to pass this problem to the next generation. So there's your real bridge to nowhere. And every young person in America is going to have to cross it.
Paul Mulshine is a columnist for the Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J. His e-mail address is pmulshine@hotmail.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would describe myself as primarily pro-life, in that I think that the establishment and adoption of disrespect for the foundational respect for life signals the onset of a progressive decline of civil society. However, it is quite correct that the onslaught of entitlement liabilities that are now at hand, represent imminent economic calamity. And, I am amazed at how little (in fact none, that I can see) attention is being paid to this matter in this election season. It doesn't take a genius to see this tsunami, the leading curl of which we are now perched directly below. Any serious candidate must be aware of the crisis that the new president will face.
I assume that a Democratic president will just blame Bush for it to justify the necessity to do all three short-term supposed solutions: dramatically raise taxes, cut and/or ration benefits, and hyper-inflate the dollar, al of which in the big picture will actually exacerbate the problem and probably be followed by a more dramatic socialization of the economy. This would be called "soaking the wealthy corporations, but in fact will be a bon to established corporations, imposing taxes and regulations that they can afford, but potential competition cannot. That is what socialism is: the alliance of big business and government.
McCain probably sees this impending threat, but knows it would be politically treacherous to talk about. But at least he is assertive about the urgent need to curtail extravagant spending, which is why Tom Coburn, the most conservative US Senator supports him enthusiastically, despite McCain's other conservative incoherencies. And, so do I, though I assertively opposed McCain in 2000 and voted 3rd party in 2000 and 2004.
And, The Fair Tax is the only way to ease, even if it doesn't totally avert the crisis. And, not because a calculation of revenue based on current economic activity will solve the problem. In fact, the very suggestion is absurd: other things being equal, the change is supposed to be revenue neutral. But, it is expected that other things will not be equal: the change will bring a surge in revenue from both new economic activity and previously untaxed activity.
Is The Fair Tax the complete solution to the problem? It probably will not, because the problem is so unbelievably huge. Bit in fact, it is an essential start to addressing the problem: if The Fair Tax doesn't "cure" it, no other possible course will even make a tiny ding in the problem.
Published Shot At Fair Tax Finds Only Air
Minnesota’s http://www.twincities.com/opinion/ci_9436854 posted an article by Paul Mulshine of The Star-Ledger of Newark, New Jersey on Saturday. It correctly pointed up the impending entitlement crisis and then missed the point in asserting that The Fair Tax that Huckabee supports will not fix it, calling it, “the real bridge to nowhere.” Here is the article and the response I left at the site.
So there's your real bridge to nowhere
By Paul Mulshine
Article Last Updated: 05/31/2008 04:24:03 PM CDT
Want to know what I never want to hear about again? The bridge to nowhere, that's what. Throughout this primary election season, which limps to a merciful end Tuesday, I have heard politicians pontificating about how they oppose building that bridge in Alaska.
I would much prefer to hear the pols talk about the one issue that looms above all others in terms of importance. Try to guess what it is. It's not the Iraq war. It's not the price of gas. It's not abortion, guns or gay marriage.
Give up? The biggest issue facing the next president of the United States is that the country is broke. Or at least it would be if it were a business. The accumulated debt of the United States exceeds its revenue by so much that if it were a corporation, the federal government would be in bankruptcy court.
You won't hear about this from politicians for one simple reason: Most of that debt is for programs promised to current and future retirees. Social Security and Medicare are too popular to cut. But they're too expensive to fund. So politicians ignore the problem.
Accountants worry about it, however. If you understand numbers, as Sheila Weinberg does, then you understand that the country is on its way to becoming a banana republic, a place where you need a knapsack just to carry currency. In Latin America years ago, I once visited such a country. I needed an inch-thick pile of bills just to buy breakfast, and breakfast cost only 75 cents in American money.
I don't want my kids to inherit such an economy. Weinberg feels the same about her kids. That's why she got involved with the Institute for Truth in Accounting, an Illinois-based group that would like to see government at all levels adopt "accrual accounting" as the heart of its budget process.
In traditional government accounting, politicians can promise endless future benefits while paying only a tiny portion upfront. But in accrual accounting, the pols would have to put aside enough money in a trust fund immediately to cover future promises.
If the U.S. had followed that system, the trust fund for Social Security and Medicare would need an immediate infusion of $54 trillion, Weinberg said. That's a lot of dough.
We ran up this debt because pols of both parties voted for popular programs without raising taxes to cover them. A classic was that prescription drug program adopted in the first term of the Bush administration.
"When they passed the prescription drug program, they should have sent a bill for $25,000 to every American," says Weinberg. "They should have asked, 'Do you want that? Then you need to send a check for $25,000 to start funding it.' "
Instead, the pols just added another $8 trillion in unfunded liability to a Medicare system that was already in the red.
But imagine for a second that the pols faced this problem honestly and decided to raise revenue to pay for their promises. How much would taxes have to rise?
The Congressional Budget Office was recently asked that question by Rep. Paul Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin who is one of the few politicians willing to talk about the problem. In a letter to Ryan last month, the CBO said the income tax would have to more than double to offset entitlement expenses. That would mean the tax rate on income now in the 25 percent bracket — where many middle-class Americans find themselves — would rise to a staggering 63 percent. The top rate would have to rise from 35 percent to 83 percent.
To look at it another way, consider this in terms of GOP presidential contender Mike Huckabee's so-called "fair tax," a national sales tax of about 23 percent. Candidate Huckabee proposed that tax as a substitute for the income tax. But to balance the budget honestly, a President Huckabee would need to impose that big sales tax while also keeping the income tax.
Try to imagine Huckabee — or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John McCain, for that matter — proposing such a huge tax hike. That's about as likely as any one of them proposing that we end Social Security and Medicare.
This is one area where the true spirit of bipartisanship reigns supreme. Both parties want to pass this problem to the next generation. So there's your real bridge to nowhere. And every young person in America is going to have to cross it.
Paul Mulshine is a columnist for the Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J. His e-mail address is pmulshine@hotmail.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would describe myself as primarily pro-life, in that I think that the establishment and adoption of disrespect for the foundational respect for life signals the onset of a progressive decline of civil society. However, it is quite correct that the onslaught of entitlement liabilities that are now at hand, represent imminent economic calamity. And, I am amazed at how little (in fact none, that I can see) attention is being paid to this matter in this election season. It doesn't take a genius to see this tsunami, the leading curl of which we are now perched directly below. Any serious candidate must be aware of the crisis that the new president will face.
I assume that a Democratic president will just blame Bush for it to justify the necessity to do all three short-term supposed solutions: dramatically raise taxes, cut and/or ration benefits, and hyper-inflate the dollar, al of which in the big picture will actually exaccerbate the problem and probably be followed by a more dramatic socialization of the economy. This would be called "soaking the wealthy corporations, but in fact will be a bon to established corporations, imposing taxes and regulations that they can afford, but potential competition cannot. That is what socialism is: the alliance of big business and government.
McCain probably sees this impending threat, but knows it would be politically treacherous to talk about. But at least he is assertive about the urgent need to curtail extravagant spending, which is why Tom Coburn, the most conservative US Senator supports him enthusiastically, despite McCain's other conservative incoherencies. And, so do I, though I assertively opposed McCain in 2000 and voted 3rd party in 2000 and 2004.
And, The Fair Tax is the only way to ease, even if it doesn't totally avert the crisis. And, not because a calculation of revenue based on current economic activity will solve the problem. In fact, the very suggestion is absurd: other things being equal, the change is supposed to be revenue neutral. But, it is expected that other things will not be equal: the change will bring a surge in revenue from both new economic activity and previously untaxed activity.
Is The Fair Tax the complete solution to the problem? It probably will not, because the problem is so unbelievably huge. Bit in fact, it is an essential start to addressing the problem: if The Fair Tax doesn't "cure" it, no other possible course will even make a tiny ding in the problem.
So there's your real bridge to nowhere
By Paul Mulshine
Article Last Updated: 05/31/2008 04:24:03 PM CDT
Want to know what I never want to hear about again? The bridge to nowhere, that's what. Throughout this primary election season, which limps to a merciful end Tuesday, I have heard politicians pontificating about how they oppose building that bridge in Alaska.
I would much prefer to hear the pols talk about the one issue that looms above all others in terms of importance. Try to guess what it is. It's not the Iraq war. It's not the price of gas. It's not abortion, guns or gay marriage.
Give up? The biggest issue facing the next president of the United States is that the country is broke. Or at least it would be if it were a business. The accumulated debt of the United States exceeds its revenue by so much that if it were a corporation, the federal government would be in bankruptcy court.
You won't hear about this from politicians for one simple reason: Most of that debt is for programs promised to current and future retirees. Social Security and Medicare are too popular to cut. But they're too expensive to fund. So politicians ignore the problem.
Accountants worry about it, however. If you understand numbers, as Sheila Weinberg does, then you understand that the country is on its way to becoming a banana republic, a place where you need a knapsack just to carry currency. In Latin America years ago, I once visited such a country. I needed an inch-thick pile of bills just to buy breakfast, and breakfast cost only 75 cents in American money.
I don't want my kids to inherit such an economy. Weinberg feels the same about her kids. That's why she got involved with the Institute for Truth in Accounting, an Illinois-based group that would like to see government at all levels adopt "accrual accounting" as the heart of its budget process.
In traditional government accounting, politicians can promise endless future benefits while paying only a tiny portion upfront. But in accrual accounting, the pols would have to put aside enough money in a trust fund immediately to cover future promises.
If the U.S. had followed that system, the trust fund for Social Security and Medicare would need an immediate infusion of $54 trillion, Weinberg said. That's a lot of dough.
We ran up this debt because pols of both parties voted for popular programs without raising taxes to cover them. A classic was that prescription drug program adopted in the first term of the Bush administration.
"When they passed the prescription drug program, they should have sent a bill for $25,000 to every American," says Weinberg. "They should have asked, 'Do you want that? Then you need to send a check for $25,000 to start funding it.' "
Instead, the pols just added another $8 trillion in unfunded liability to a Medicare system that was already in the red.
But imagine for a second that the pols faced this problem honestly and decided to raise revenue to pay for their promises. How much would taxes have to rise?
The Congressional Budget Office was recently asked that question by Rep. Paul Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin who is one of the few politicians willing to talk about the problem. In a letter to Ryan last month, the CBO said the income tax would have to more than double to offset entitlement expenses. That would mean the tax rate on income now in the 25 percent bracket — where many middle-class Americans find themselves — would rise to a staggering 63 percent. The top rate would have to rise from 35 percent to 83 percent.
To look at it another way, consider this in terms of GOP presidential contender Mike Huckabee's so-called "fair tax," a national sales tax of about 23 percent. Candidate Huckabee proposed that tax as a substitute for the income tax. But to balance the budget honestly, a President Huckabee would need to impose that big sales tax while also keeping the income tax.
Try to imagine Huckabee — or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John McCain, for that matter — proposing such a huge tax hike. That's about as likely as any one of them proposing that we end Social Security and Medicare.
This is one area where the true spirit of bipartisanship reigns supreme. Both parties want to pass this problem to the next generation. So there's your real bridge to nowhere. And every young person in America is going to have to cross it.
Paul Mulshine is a columnist for the Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J. His e-mail address is pmulshine@hotmail.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would describe myself as primarily pro-life, in that I think that the establishment and adoption of disrespect for the foundational respect for life signals the onset of a progressive decline of civil society. However, it is quite correct that the onslaught of entitlement liabilities that are now at hand, represent imminent economic calamity. And, I am amazed at how little (in fact none, that I can see) attention is being paid to this matter in this election season. It doesn't take a genius to see this tsunami, the leading curl of which we are now perched directly below. Any serious candidate must be aware of the crisis that the new president will face.
I assume that a Democratic president will just blame Bush for it to justify the necessity to do all three short-term supposed solutions: dramatically raise taxes, cut and/or ration benefits, and hyper-inflate the dollar, al of which in the big picture will actually exaccerbate the problem and probably be followed by a more dramatic socialization of the economy. This would be called "soaking the wealthy corporations, but in fact will be a bon to established corporations, imposing taxes and regulations that they can afford, but potential competition cannot. That is what socialism is: the alliance of big business and government.
McCain probably sees this impending threat, but knows it would be politically treacherous to talk about. But at least he is assertive about the urgent need to curtail extravagant spending, which is why Tom Coburn, the most conservative US Senator supports him enthusiastically, despite McCain's other conservative incoherencies. And, so do I, though I assertively opposed McCain in 2000 and voted 3rd party in 2000 and 2004.
And, The Fair Tax is the only way to ease, even if it doesn't totally avert the crisis. And, not because a calculation of revenue based on current economic activity will solve the problem. In fact, the very suggestion is absurd: other things being equal, the change is supposed to be revenue neutral. But, it is expected that other things will not be equal: the change will bring a surge in revenue from both new economic activity and previously untaxed activity.
Is The Fair Tax the complete solution to the problem? It probably will not, because the problem is so unbelievably huge. Bit in fact, it is an essential start to addressing the problem: if The Fair Tax doesn't "cure" it, no other possible course will even make a tiny ding in the problem.
Published Shot At Fair Tax Finds Only Air
Minnesota’s http://www.twincities.com/opinion/ci_9436854 posted an article by Paul Mulshine of The Star-Ledger of Newark, New Jersey on Saturday. It correctly pointed up the impending entitlement crisis and then missed the point in asserting that The Fair Tax that Huckabee supports will not fix it, calling it, “the real bridge to nowhere.” Here is the article and the response I left at the site.
So there's your real bridge to nowhere
By Paul Mulshine
Article Last Updated: 05/31/2008 04:24:03 PM CDT
Want to know what I never want to hear about again? The bridge to nowhere, that's what. Throughout this primary election season, which limps to a merciful end Tuesday, I have heard politicians pontificating about how they oppose building that bridge in Alaska.
I would much prefer to hear the pols talk about the one issue that looms above all others in terms of importance. Try to guess what it is. It's not the Iraq war. It's not the price of gas. It's not abortion, guns or gay marriage.
Give up? The biggest issue facing the next president of the United States is that the country is broke. Or at least it would be if it were a business. The accumulated debt of the United States exceeds its revenue by so much that if it were a corporation, the federal government would be in bankruptcy court.
You won't hear about this from politicians for one simple reason: Most of that debt is for programs promised to current and future retirees. Social Security and Medicare are too popular to cut. But they're too expensive to fund. So politicians ignore the problem.
Accountants worry about it, however. If you understand numbers, as Sheila Weinberg does, then you understand that the country is on its way to becoming a banana republic, a place where you need a knapsack just to carry currency. In Latin America years ago, I once visited such a country. I needed an inch-thick pile of bills just to buy breakfast, and breakfast cost only 75 cents in American money.
I don't want my kids to inherit such an economy. Weinberg feels the same about her kids. That's why she got involved with the Institute for Truth in Accounting, an Illinois-based group that would like to see government at all levels adopt "accrual accounting" as the heart of its budget process.
In traditional government accounting, politicians can promise endless future benefits while paying only a tiny portion upfront. But in accrual accounting, the pols would have to put aside enough money in a trust fund immediately to cover future promises.
If the U.S. had followed that system, the trust fund for Social Security and Medicare would need an immediate infusion of $54 trillion, Weinberg said. That's a lot of dough.
We ran up this debt because pols of both parties voted for popular programs without raising taxes to cover them. A classic was that prescription drug program adopted in the first term of the Bush administration.
"When they passed the prescription drug program, they should have sent a bill for $25,000 to every American," says Weinberg. "They should have asked, 'Do you want that? Then you need to send a check for $25,000 to start funding it.' "
Instead, the pols just added another $8 trillion in unfunded liability to a Medicare system that was already in the red.
But imagine for a second that the pols faced this problem honestly and decided to raise revenue to pay for their promises. How much would taxes have to rise?
The Congressional Budget Office was recently asked that question by Rep. Paul Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin who is one of the few politicians willing to talk about the problem. In a letter to Ryan last month, the CBO said the income tax would have to more than double to offset entitlement expenses. That would mean the tax rate on income now in the 25 percent bracket — where many middle-class Americans find themselves — would rise to a staggering 63 percent. The top rate would have to rise from 35 percent to 83 percent.
To look at it another way, consider this in terms of GOP presidential contender Mike Huckabee's so-called "fair tax," a national sales tax of about 23 percent. Candidate Huckabee proposed that tax as a substitute for the income tax. But to balance the budget honestly, a President Huckabee would need to impose that big sales tax while also keeping the income tax.
Try to imagine Huckabee — or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John McCain, for that matter — proposing such a huge tax hike. That's about as likely as any one of them proposing that we end Social Security and Medicare.
This is one area where the true spirit of bipartisanship reigns supreme. Both parties want to pass this problem to the next generation. So there's your real bridge to nowhere. And every young person in America is going to have to cross it.
Paul Mulshine is a columnist for the Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J. His e-mail address is pmulshine@hotmail.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would describe myself as primarily pro-life, in that I think that the establishment and adoption of disrespect for the foundational respect for life signals the onset of a progressive decline of civil society. However, it is quite correct that the onslaught of entitlement liabilities that are now at hand, represent imminent economic calamity. And, I am amazed at how little (in fact none, that I can see) attention is being paid to this matter in this election season. It doesn't take a genius to see this tsunami, the leading curl of which we are now perched directly below. Any serious candidate must be aware of the crisis that the new president will face.
I assume that a Democratic president will just blame Bush for it to justify the necessity to do all three short-term supposed solutions: dramatically raise taxes, cut and/or ration benefits, and hyper-inflate the dollar, al of which in the big picture will actually exaccerbate the problem and probably be followed by a more dramatic socialization of the economy. This would be called "soaking the wealthy corporations, but in fact will be a bon to established corporations, imposing taxes and regulations that they can afford, but potential competition cannot. That is what socialism is: the alliance of big business and government.
McCain probably sees this impending threat, but knows it would be politically treacherous to talk about. But at least he is assertive about the urgent need to curtail extravagant spending, which is why Tom Coburn, the most conservative US Senator supports him enthusiastically, despite McCain's other conservative incoherencies. And so do I, though I assertively opposed McCain in 2000 and voted 3rd party in 2000 and 2004.
And, The Fair Tax is the only way to ease, even if it doesn't totally avert the crisis. And, not because a calculation of revenue based on current economic activity will solve the problem. In fact, the very suggestion is absurd: other things being equal, the change is supposed to be revenue neutral. But, it is expected that other things will not be equal: the change will bring a surge in revenue from both new economic activity and previously untaxed activity.
Is The Fair Tax the complete solution to the problem? It probably will not, because the problem is so unbelievably huge. Bit in fact, it is an essential start to addressing the problem: if The Fair Tax doesn't "cure" it, no other possible course will even make a tiny ding in the problem.
So there's your real bridge to nowhere
By Paul Mulshine
Article Last Updated: 05/31/2008 04:24:03 PM CDT
Want to know what I never want to hear about again? The bridge to nowhere, that's what. Throughout this primary election season, which limps to a merciful end Tuesday, I have heard politicians pontificating about how they oppose building that bridge in Alaska.
I would much prefer to hear the pols talk about the one issue that looms above all others in terms of importance. Try to guess what it is. It's not the Iraq war. It's not the price of gas. It's not abortion, guns or gay marriage.
Give up? The biggest issue facing the next president of the United States is that the country is broke. Or at least it would be if it were a business. The accumulated debt of the United States exceeds its revenue by so much that if it were a corporation, the federal government would be in bankruptcy court.
You won't hear about this from politicians for one simple reason: Most of that debt is for programs promised to current and future retirees. Social Security and Medicare are too popular to cut. But they're too expensive to fund. So politicians ignore the problem.
Accountants worry about it, however. If you understand numbers, as Sheila Weinberg does, then you understand that the country is on its way to becoming a banana republic, a place where you need a knapsack just to carry currency. In Latin America years ago, I once visited such a country. I needed an inch-thick pile of bills just to buy breakfast, and breakfast cost only 75 cents in American money.
I don't want my kids to inherit such an economy. Weinberg feels the same about her kids. That's why she got involved with the Institute for Truth in Accounting, an Illinois-based group that would like to see government at all levels adopt "accrual accounting" as the heart of its budget process.
In traditional government accounting, politicians can promise endless future benefits while paying only a tiny portion upfront. But in accrual accounting, the pols would have to put aside enough money in a trust fund immediately to cover future promises.
If the U.S. had followed that system, the trust fund for Social Security and Medicare would need an immediate infusion of $54 trillion, Weinberg said. That's a lot of dough.
We ran up this debt because pols of both parties voted for popular programs without raising taxes to cover them. A classic was that prescription drug program adopted in the first term of the Bush administration.
"When they passed the prescription drug program, they should have sent a bill for $25,000 to every American," says Weinberg. "They should have asked, 'Do you want that? Then you need to send a check for $25,000 to start funding it.' "
Instead, the pols just added another $8 trillion in unfunded liability to a Medicare system that was already in the red.
But imagine for a second that the pols faced this problem honestly and decided to raise revenue to pay for their promises. How much would taxes have to rise?
The Congressional Budget Office was recently asked that question by Rep. Paul Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin who is one of the few politicians willing to talk about the problem. In a letter to Ryan last month, the CBO said the income tax would have to more than double to offset entitlement expenses. That would mean the tax rate on income now in the 25 percent bracket — where many middle-class Americans find themselves — would rise to a staggering 63 percent. The top rate would have to rise from 35 percent to 83 percent.
To look at it another way, consider this in terms of GOP presidential contender Mike Huckabee's so-called "fair tax," a national sales tax of about 23 percent. Candidate Huckabee proposed that tax as a substitute for the income tax. But to balance the budget honestly, a President Huckabee would need to impose that big sales tax while also keeping the income tax.
Try to imagine Huckabee — or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John McCain, for that matter — proposing such a huge tax hike. That's about as likely as any one of them proposing that we end Social Security and Medicare.
This is one area where the true spirit of bipartisanship reigns supreme. Both parties want to pass this problem to the next generation. So there's your real bridge to nowhere. And every young person in America is going to have to cross it.
Paul Mulshine is a columnist for the Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J. His e-mail address is pmulshine@hotmail.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would describe myself as primarily pro-life, in that I think that the establishment and adoption of disrespect for the foundational respect for life signals the onset of a progressive decline of civil society. However, it is quite correct that the onslaught of entitlement liabilities that are now at hand, represent imminent economic calamity. And, I am amazed at how little (in fact none, that I can see) attention is being paid to this matter in this election season. It doesn't take a genius to see this tsunami, the leading curl of which we are now perched directly below. Any serious candidate must be aware of the crisis that the new president will face.
I assume that a Democratic president will just blame Bush for it to justify the necessity to do all three short-term supposed solutions: dramatically raise taxes, cut and/or ration benefits, and hyper-inflate the dollar, al of which in the big picture will actually exaccerbate the problem and probably be followed by a more dramatic socialization of the economy. This would be called "soaking the wealthy corporations, but in fact will be a bon to established corporations, imposing taxes and regulations that they can afford, but potential competition cannot. That is what socialism is: the alliance of big business and government.
McCain probably sees this impending threat, but knows it would be politically treacherous to talk about. But at least he is assertive about the urgent need to curtail extravagant spending, which is why Tom Coburn, the most conservative US Senator supports him enthusiastically, despite McCain's other conservative incoherencies. And so do I, though I assertively opposed McCain in 2000 and voted 3rd party in 2000 and 2004.
And, The Fair Tax is the only way to ease, even if it doesn't totally avert the crisis. And, not because a calculation of revenue based on current economic activity will solve the problem. In fact, the very suggestion is absurd: other things being equal, the change is supposed to be revenue neutral. But, it is expected that other things will not be equal: the change will bring a surge in revenue from both new economic activity and previously untaxed activity.
Is The Fair Tax the complete solution to the problem? It probably will not, because the problem is so unbelievably huge. Bit in fact, it is an essential start to addressing the problem: if The Fair Tax doesn't "cure" it, no other possible course will even make a tiny ding in the problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)