I just had my daughter (who started a new job recently and has no insurance yet) at the local Emergency Room. We had to pay $200 upon arrival. Her prescription cost $260. Those two items alone would cost someone making minimum wage one and one half weeks worth of gross wages!
For those who think that the poor take advantage of services, please rethink your position because I’ll tell you what happens in many cases—the $260 prescription doesn’t get filled. Groceries, rent, clothes and shoes for growing children, and utilities are more of a priority.
A couple of years ago my father was in the hospital and I ran into a friend in the hallway who was also a patient. I visited with her awhile and found out that she’d just been diagnosed with cancer. When I inquired about what kind of treatment they would use, she quietly shook her head and told me she didn’t have insurance, so there was nothing she could do.
When did some start believing that access to health care isn’t an inalienable right? When did health care or affordable health insurance become a luxury? When our citizens are unhealthy, we’re all unhealthy.
When our parents and grandparents were growing up, everyone was treated by doctors and hospitals, even if they had to pay by bartering. My grandfather often got chickens in payment and sometimes nothing. But he never turned anyone down and treated Indians when some others wouldn’t.
Our collective moral compass should point toward keeping our citizens—all our citizens—healthy. It’s the least we can do!
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Saturday, December 11, 2010
WHEN WILL WE WAKE UP?
Republicans are for the rich and ONLY the rich.
National Defense Reauthorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R.5136; S.3454)
Republicans voted down the Defense Reauthorization bill*—
• because it includes a provision that repeals the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy which bans gay men and women from serving openly in the military.
• because they refuse to pass anything until tax deductions for the rich are passed.
H.R.5136—Vote passed 229-186; 17 not voting.
Dan Boren (D-OK)—Didn’t vote
Tom Cole (R-OK)—No
Mary Fallin (R-OK)—No
Frank Lucas (R-OK)—No
John Sullivan (R-OK)--No
S.3454-- Vote failed 57-40; 3 abstained.
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
*This bill included pay increases for our troops, provides funding for the military and equipment needed for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with an extension of Tricare coverage for military dependents. For detailed information about the bill, see: http://dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc.cfm?doc_name=lb-111-2-146
Should the Senate fail to pass a Defense Authorization bill, it will mark the first time in 50 years that the Senate abdicated this responsibility to our troops.
James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2009 (H.R.847; S1334)
(named after a deceased N.Y. Police Department detective who had worked in the toxic plume at ground zero)
Mostly Republicans (Thank you, Tom Cole (R), and Dan Boren (D) for supporting this!) voted against the bill that would help those injured while helping on 9/11—
• because the $7.4 billion price tag was too high.**
• because it “creates a massive new entitlement program, exposes taxpayers to increased litigation and is ‘paid for’ with tax increases and potential job losses.”**
• because it “creates a new entitlement program largely favoring New York at the expense of taxpayers elsewhere in the country.”**
• because it closes a loophole on foreign companies with U.S. subsidiaries.
• because they refuse to pass anything until tax deductions for the rich are passed.
Even though New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (R) appealed to Republican senators “to do the right thing,” it was voted down. Bloomberg told them, “We cannot wait any longer for action on this legislation. Let us work together, both sides of the aisle, now to ensure that all those who survived the attacks and all those who risked their lives to save others receive the health care they need and they deserve. This is an American obligation.”
House: Vote passed 268-160; 5 abstained
Boren (D-OK)—Aye
Cole (R-OK)—Aye
Fallin (R-OK)—Abstain
Lucas (R-OK)—Nay
Sullivan (R-OK)—Nay
Senate: Motion to Proceed to H.R.847: Vote failed: 57-42; 1 abstained
Coburn (R-OK)—Nay
Inhofe (R-OK)—Nay
** It’s paid for by closing a tax loophole on foreign companies with U.S. subsidiaries
DREAM Act 2010 (H.R. 1751; S.3827)
Republican Senators plan to defeat the DREAM Act when it’s presented to the Senate—
• because “it will encourage further illegal immigration.”
• because they refuse to pass anything until tax deductions for the rich are passed.
12/8/10--House Vote passed 216-198
Boren (D-OK), No
Cole (R-OK), No
Fallin (R-OK), X (didn’t vote)
Lucas (R-OK), No
Sullivan (R-OK), No
A number of military leaders have come out in support of the DREAM Act, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates. "The expansion of the pool of eligible youth that would result from the DREAM Act provides an important opportunity to selectively manage against the highest qualification standards.," Gates wrote in a September letter to senators. "This will result in improved recruitment results and attendant gains in unit manning and military performance."
This has not stopped the GOP (three of whose elder statesmen, Hatch, Lugar, and McCain, once spearheaded its creation) from opposing DREAM on ostensibly logical grounds. It will, the party's argument now goes, encourage further illegal immigration.
Read details about The DREAM Act: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/dream-act-vote-2010-4237483#ixzz17foNdLuu
Seniors Protection Act of 2010 (H.R.5987)
Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act of 2010 (S.3985)
• because the nation couldn't afford the estimated $14 billion cost of the payment***.
• because they refuse to pass anything until tax deductions for the rich are passed.
This bill would have given senior citizens $250 in lieu of a COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment), which seniors have not received since 2009. More than 58 million retirees, disabled people and surviving family members receive Social Security or Supplemental Security Income checks. The average monthly SS check is $1,072.
House: 254 for passage-153 against passage—Vote failed
Boren (D-OK): Yea
Cole (R-OK): Nay
Fallin (R-OK): Not voting
Lucas (R-OK): Nay
Sullivan (R-OK): Nay
Thank you, Rep. Boren!
Senate (vote to bring bill to floor for vote): 53 for bringing to vote-45 against bringing to vote--Failed
Coburn (R-OK): Nay
Inhofe (R-OK): Nay
***Remember that the tax cut for the wealthy will cost an additional $900 Billion (compared to $14 Billion for this bill.)
The official Republican Party position, as laid out in a letter, and signed by all 42 members of the Senate Republican caucus:
…We write to inform you that we will not agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers. With little time left in this Congressional session, legislative scheduling should be focused on these critical priorities. While there are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the Senate’s attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government and preventing a job-killing tax hike.
Republicans are now holding the following hostage until they get tax cuts for the extremely wealthy:
• our sisters, brothers, sons, daughters, spouses and parents who are fighting for our freedom
• 9/11 first responders who risked their lives to save others in a horrible tragedy
• young people wanting to enter our military and colleges who came to America through no fault of their own
• senior citizens who earn an average of $1072 monthly
This is in addition to the middle class Americans whose salaries have been relatively stagnant, the poor whose minimum wages have actually decreased (in current dollars) for decades, and the unemployed who face no jobs and no help. They, too, are being held hostage by fear mongers who refuse to even consider their needs until the rich have been paid—through reduced income taxes, exemptions from estate taxes, additional reductions of capital gains taxes, and reductions in Alternative Minimum Taxes.
Just to help you understand how calculated the tax cuts were originally, read what former Bush spokesman, Dan Bartlett, said about them, “We knew that, politically, once you get [a big tax cut] into law, it becomes almost impossible to remove it. That’s not a bad legacy. The fact that we were able to lay the trap does feel pretty good, to tell you the truth.”
National Defense Reauthorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R.5136; S.3454)
Republicans voted down the Defense Reauthorization bill*—
• because it includes a provision that repeals the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy which bans gay men and women from serving openly in the military.
• because they refuse to pass anything until tax deductions for the rich are passed.
H.R.5136—Vote passed 229-186; 17 not voting.
Dan Boren (D-OK)—Didn’t vote
Tom Cole (R-OK)—No
Mary Fallin (R-OK)—No
Frank Lucas (R-OK)—No
John Sullivan (R-OK)--No
S.3454-- Vote failed 57-40; 3 abstained.
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
*This bill included pay increases for our troops, provides funding for the military and equipment needed for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with an extension of Tricare coverage for military dependents. For detailed information about the bill, see: http://dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc.cfm?doc_name=lb-111-2-146
Should the Senate fail to pass a Defense Authorization bill, it will mark the first time in 50 years that the Senate abdicated this responsibility to our troops.
James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2009 (H.R.847; S1334)
(named after a deceased N.Y. Police Department detective who had worked in the toxic plume at ground zero)
Mostly Republicans (Thank you, Tom Cole (R), and Dan Boren (D) for supporting this!) voted against the bill that would help those injured while helping on 9/11—
• because the $7.4 billion price tag was too high.**
• because it “creates a massive new entitlement program, exposes taxpayers to increased litigation and is ‘paid for’ with tax increases and potential job losses.”**
• because it “creates a new entitlement program largely favoring New York at the expense of taxpayers elsewhere in the country.”**
• because it closes a loophole on foreign companies with U.S. subsidiaries.
• because they refuse to pass anything until tax deductions for the rich are passed.
Even though New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (R) appealed to Republican senators “to do the right thing,” it was voted down. Bloomberg told them, “We cannot wait any longer for action on this legislation. Let us work together, both sides of the aisle, now to ensure that all those who survived the attacks and all those who risked their lives to save others receive the health care they need and they deserve. This is an American obligation.”
House: Vote passed 268-160; 5 abstained
Boren (D-OK)—Aye
Cole (R-OK)—Aye
Fallin (R-OK)—Abstain
Lucas (R-OK)—Nay
Sullivan (R-OK)—Nay
Senate: Motion to Proceed to H.R.847: Vote failed: 57-42; 1 abstained
Coburn (R-OK)—Nay
Inhofe (R-OK)—Nay
** It’s paid for by closing a tax loophole on foreign companies with U.S. subsidiaries
DREAM Act 2010 (H.R. 1751; S.3827)
Republican Senators plan to defeat the DREAM Act when it’s presented to the Senate—
• because “it will encourage further illegal immigration.”
• because they refuse to pass anything until tax deductions for the rich are passed.
12/8/10--House Vote passed 216-198
Boren (D-OK), No
Cole (R-OK), No
Fallin (R-OK), X (didn’t vote)
Lucas (R-OK), No
Sullivan (R-OK), No
A number of military leaders have come out in support of the DREAM Act, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates. "The expansion of the pool of eligible youth that would result from the DREAM Act provides an important opportunity to selectively manage against the highest qualification standards.," Gates wrote in a September letter to senators. "This will result in improved recruitment results and attendant gains in unit manning and military performance."
This has not stopped the GOP (three of whose elder statesmen, Hatch, Lugar, and McCain, once spearheaded its creation) from opposing DREAM on ostensibly logical grounds. It will, the party's argument now goes, encourage further illegal immigration.
Read details about The DREAM Act: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/dream-act-vote-2010-4237483#ixzz17foNdLuu
Seniors Protection Act of 2010 (H.R.5987)
Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act of 2010 (S.3985)
• because the nation couldn't afford the estimated $14 billion cost of the payment***.
• because they refuse to pass anything until tax deductions for the rich are passed.
This bill would have given senior citizens $250 in lieu of a COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment), which seniors have not received since 2009. More than 58 million retirees, disabled people and surviving family members receive Social Security or Supplemental Security Income checks. The average monthly SS check is $1,072.
House: 254 for passage-153 against passage—Vote failed
Boren (D-OK): Yea
Cole (R-OK): Nay
Fallin (R-OK): Not voting
Lucas (R-OK): Nay
Sullivan (R-OK): Nay
Thank you, Rep. Boren!
Senate (vote to bring bill to floor for vote): 53 for bringing to vote-45 against bringing to vote--Failed
Coburn (R-OK): Nay
Inhofe (R-OK): Nay
***Remember that the tax cut for the wealthy will cost an additional $900 Billion (compared to $14 Billion for this bill.)
The official Republican Party position, as laid out in a letter, and signed by all 42 members of the Senate Republican caucus:
…We write to inform you that we will not agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers. With little time left in this Congressional session, legislative scheduling should be focused on these critical priorities. While there are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the Senate’s attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government and preventing a job-killing tax hike.
Republicans are now holding the following hostage until they get tax cuts for the extremely wealthy:
• our sisters, brothers, sons, daughters, spouses and parents who are fighting for our freedom
• 9/11 first responders who risked their lives to save others in a horrible tragedy
• young people wanting to enter our military and colleges who came to America through no fault of their own
• senior citizens who earn an average of $1072 monthly
This is in addition to the middle class Americans whose salaries have been relatively stagnant, the poor whose minimum wages have actually decreased (in current dollars) for decades, and the unemployed who face no jobs and no help. They, too, are being held hostage by fear mongers who refuse to even consider their needs until the rich have been paid—through reduced income taxes, exemptions from estate taxes, additional reductions of capital gains taxes, and reductions in Alternative Minimum Taxes.
Just to help you understand how calculated the tax cuts were originally, read what former Bush spokesman, Dan Bartlett, said about them, “We knew that, politically, once you get [a big tax cut] into law, it becomes almost impossible to remove it. That’s not a bad legacy. The fact that we were able to lay the trap does feel pretty good, to tell you the truth.”
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
TAX REFORM SUGGESTIONS
First, I’m going to suggest major reforms. All of a person’s income should be taxed at the stated rate. (For simplicity’s sake, I will use the “head of household” category in all examples.) As the tax system operates now, someone who makes $1,000,000 annually does not pay 35% of that amount in income taxes. He/she actually pays like this:
On the first $11,950, he/she will pay the 10% rate.
On the next $33,600, he/she will pay the 15% rate.
On the next $72,101, he/she will pay the 25% rate.
On the next $72,900, he/she will pay the 28% rate.
On the next $183,100, he/she will pay the 33% rate.
At this point our hypothetical head of household has paid much less than the stated 35% rate on the $373,651 total shown above. The remainder (the difference between $1 M and $373,651, which is $626,350) is what will be taxed at the 35% rate. Our example person actually pays only 32% of his/her income on income taxes.
To be fair then, let’s look at what some heads of households actually pay:
Those making $0 to $11,950 actually pay the full stated percentage: 10%
Those making $45,550 pay 14%, not the stated 15%.
Those making $117,650 pay 21%, instead of the stated 25%.
Those making $190,550 pay 23% rather than the 28% stated amount.
Those making $373,650 pay 28% instead of the 33% given.
Those making over $373,650 don’t actually pay 35% until their income reaches approx. $10,000,000.
The examples listed do not take into account any deductions or loopholes that may be (and often are) used to lower the actual tax payments. The point is that the lowest income group is the only one that pays at the stated rate. All other stated rates are misleading to most people.
That’s Step #1—make it simple and easy for all to explain and understand.
Step #2: Take to heart the words that one of our premier founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, said to James Madison in 1784 regarding taxes.
"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784
When calculating the amounts that “may be annually spared” by an individual, we should really think about that. Can a family making $11,950 annually truly spare $1195 for taxes? That would leave that family with a whopping $10,755 of disposable income for an entire year.
By the same token, a family making $500,000 pays $149,317.75 in taxes (30% of total income)—by most standards, enough to annually spare—since it still leaves them with disposable income of $350,682.25.
As Warren Buffett (the third richest man in the world) has said, “I think that people at the high end, people like myself, should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it.” He continued, "The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on."
A cadre’ of both former and current Millionaires recently wrote President Obama a letter with basically the same message: “We have done very well over the last several years. Now, during our nation’s moment of need, we are eager to do our fair share. We don’t need more tax cuts, and we understand that cutting our taxes will increase the deficit and the debt burden carried by other taxpayers. The country needs to meet its financial obligations in a just and responsible way.” The 45 individuals or families signing the letter also stated, “For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you allow tax cuts on incomes over $1,000,000 to expire at the end of this year as scheduled.”
Those views reflect my vision of the true American spirit. I may be naïve since I don’t, and won’t ever, make enough to be able to make those kinds of sacrifices, but I honestly believe there’s a point at which extra income is just “fluff” and isn’t necessary to enjoy a quality life. Warren Buffett is a hero in my eyes—pledging to give a minimum of 90% of his wealth to philanthropy. Buffett and Bill Gates have initiated a pledge, and are asking other billionaires to sign on, to giving at least 50% of their wealth to philanthropy. At least 40 billionaires, including Oklahoma’s own George B. Kaiser, have agreed to do so.
Step #3 in my proposal is based on yet another Thomas Jefferson quote:
"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.
There are some wage earners who should be exempt from all taxation, as Jefferson asserts. Our tax codes have done that in the past (1977-1986), but the current one requires all to pay at least 10%.
Trying to place things in perspective, think about the fact that persons of my age who generally began their careers in the early 1970s may (or may not) remember that the tax rate for heads of households making $20,000 to $22,000 annually in 1972 had an income tax rate of 35%. That’s the same rate now for millionaires, billionaires, and gazillionaires!
In that same year (1972), “heads of households” making $180,000 or more annually paid at a 70% rate.
But, I digress . . .
Mr. Jefferson’s statement to James Madison suggests that higher portions should be taxed “in geometrical progression as they rise” which means, to me, that we need to progressively increase taxation as incomes progress upwardly. Our current tax rate tops out at 35%, beginning with those making $373,650 and remains the same, no matter how much one makes. And, you might want to look back at the examples at the beginning of this post and realize that no one pays 35% now until they actually have income of approximately $10,000,000 because of our progressive methodology.
Remember that those of us who started our “real” jobs in approximately 1972 had that tax rate (35%) on measly $20,000 to $22,000 salaries! (That was not much more than what beginning teachers made in that time period.)
Not only do I wish I were rich, I’m happy for my friends and family who are. However, if I were “one of them,” I would happily pay more taxes. In fact, I would gladly do that now if our Congressional leaders would use that money to take care of those who are less fortunate.
On the first $11,950, he/she will pay the 10% rate.
On the next $33,600, he/she will pay the 15% rate.
On the next $72,101, he/she will pay the 25% rate.
On the next $72,900, he/she will pay the 28% rate.
On the next $183,100, he/she will pay the 33% rate.
At this point our hypothetical head of household has paid much less than the stated 35% rate on the $373,651 total shown above. The remainder (the difference between $1 M and $373,651, which is $626,350) is what will be taxed at the 35% rate. Our example person actually pays only 32% of his/her income on income taxes.
To be fair then, let’s look at what some heads of households actually pay:
Those making $0 to $11,950 actually pay the full stated percentage: 10%
Those making $45,550 pay 14%, not the stated 15%.
Those making $117,650 pay 21%, instead of the stated 25%.
Those making $190,550 pay 23% rather than the 28% stated amount.
Those making $373,650 pay 28% instead of the 33% given.
Those making over $373,650 don’t actually pay 35% until their income reaches approx. $10,000,000.
The examples listed do not take into account any deductions or loopholes that may be (and often are) used to lower the actual tax payments. The point is that the lowest income group is the only one that pays at the stated rate. All other stated rates are misleading to most people.
That’s Step #1—make it simple and easy for all to explain and understand.
Step #2: Take to heart the words that one of our premier founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, said to James Madison in 1784 regarding taxes.
"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784
When calculating the amounts that “may be annually spared” by an individual, we should really think about that. Can a family making $11,950 annually truly spare $1195 for taxes? That would leave that family with a whopping $10,755 of disposable income for an entire year.
By the same token, a family making $500,000 pays $149,317.75 in taxes (30% of total income)—by most standards, enough to annually spare—since it still leaves them with disposable income of $350,682.25.
As Warren Buffett (the third richest man in the world) has said, “I think that people at the high end, people like myself, should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it.” He continued, "The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on."
A cadre’ of both former and current Millionaires recently wrote President Obama a letter with basically the same message: “We have done very well over the last several years. Now, during our nation’s moment of need, we are eager to do our fair share. We don’t need more tax cuts, and we understand that cutting our taxes will increase the deficit and the debt burden carried by other taxpayers. The country needs to meet its financial obligations in a just and responsible way.” The 45 individuals or families signing the letter also stated, “For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you allow tax cuts on incomes over $1,000,000 to expire at the end of this year as scheduled.”
Those views reflect my vision of the true American spirit. I may be naïve since I don’t, and won’t ever, make enough to be able to make those kinds of sacrifices, but I honestly believe there’s a point at which extra income is just “fluff” and isn’t necessary to enjoy a quality life. Warren Buffett is a hero in my eyes—pledging to give a minimum of 90% of his wealth to philanthropy. Buffett and Bill Gates have initiated a pledge, and are asking other billionaires to sign on, to giving at least 50% of their wealth to philanthropy. At least 40 billionaires, including Oklahoma’s own George B. Kaiser, have agreed to do so.
Step #3 in my proposal is based on yet another Thomas Jefferson quote:
"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.
There are some wage earners who should be exempt from all taxation, as Jefferson asserts. Our tax codes have done that in the past (1977-1986), but the current one requires all to pay at least 10%.
Trying to place things in perspective, think about the fact that persons of my age who generally began their careers in the early 1970s may (or may not) remember that the tax rate for heads of households making $20,000 to $22,000 annually in 1972 had an income tax rate of 35%. That’s the same rate now for millionaires, billionaires, and gazillionaires!
In that same year (1972), “heads of households” making $180,000 or more annually paid at a 70% rate.
But, I digress . . .
Mr. Jefferson’s statement to James Madison suggests that higher portions should be taxed “in geometrical progression as they rise” which means, to me, that we need to progressively increase taxation as incomes progress upwardly. Our current tax rate tops out at 35%, beginning with those making $373,650 and remains the same, no matter how much one makes. And, you might want to look back at the examples at the beginning of this post and realize that no one pays 35% now until they actually have income of approximately $10,000,000 because of our progressive methodology.
Remember that those of us who started our “real” jobs in approximately 1972 had that tax rate (35%) on measly $20,000 to $22,000 salaries! (That was not much more than what beginning teachers made in that time period.)
Not only do I wish I were rich, I’m happy for my friends and family who are. However, if I were “one of them,” I would happily pay more taxes. In fact, I would gladly do that now if our Congressional leaders would use that money to take care of those who are less fortunate.
JUSTICE FOR ALL?
You’re a parent with two sons—one recently lost his job and the other is a multi-millionaire. What do you do? Do you tell the unemployed son he’s lazy and that you won’t help him because that would make him too dependent and then you increase the wealthy son’s inheritance? Would you add insult to injury and use the unemployed son’s portion of his inheritance to pay for the increase you gave the wealthy son? Probably not—unless you’re extremely cold-hearted and mean-spirited. Why? Because most parents love their children equally and help those who are hurting and vulnerable get back on their feet. In fact, in most families, the wealthier son would probably pitch in and also help his brother.
Our nation’s children (its citizens) are hurting. Millions have lost jobs, homes, savings, and often self-respect. On the other hand, a small number of our nation’s citizens are doing exceptionally well. Who should we help?
My moral compass points toward prioritizing helping the millions who are hurting.
America had a budget surplus of $230 billion for fiscal year 2000, the largest in U.S. history, topping the previous year’s record surplus of $122.7 billion. That represented the largest one year debt reduction in the nation’s history. So, what happened? Congressional spending exploded.
We need to look first at the reasons causing an historic surplus to morph into a frightening, potentially debilitating deficit. Most economists agree that the following reasons were lead causes for the deficit:
•The Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 and 2003 (added $2.3 trillion alone over ten years)
•The Medicare prescription drug bill
•Post 9/11 security spending, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
There are only a few fiscally responsible choices about how to fix the current deficit situation, almost all of which include reducing spending. Economists tell us that some spending (those with the highest “bang for the buck”) is necessary. Extending unemployment benefits, providing more aid for state governments, child tax credit rebates, acceleration of the 10% tax bracket, and those that target low and middle income households are specific possibilities that meet the criteria of necessary spending that provide the most stimulus for the economy.
Republicans campaigned heavily this year about reducing the budget deficit and pledged to not vote for any increased spending without offsets. That was how they felt until allowing tax cuts for the extremely wealthy expire was mentioned. Now they’re fine with not requiring cuts elsewhere to cover the costs. Or are they?
Beware. Is it paranoid to think that they may suddenly declare the deficit the enemy again once their newly-elected friends are seated in January? I don’t think so. In fact, they might use the one year “payroll tax holiday” to reintroduce the privatization of Social Security or even scrapping the whole program. After all, the wealthy that they love to protect don’t need it. And their attitude toward those who do need it is hateful, at the very least.
Look at what's on the table--
HELP FOR THE POOR & MIDDLE CLASS: Unemployment benefits
HELP FOR THE RICH: Estate tax cuts; Alternative Minimum Tax cuts; capital gains tax cuts; income tax cuts
Justice for all? I don’t think so.
Our nation’s children (its citizens) are hurting. Millions have lost jobs, homes, savings, and often self-respect. On the other hand, a small number of our nation’s citizens are doing exceptionally well. Who should we help?
My moral compass points toward prioritizing helping the millions who are hurting.
America had a budget surplus of $230 billion for fiscal year 2000, the largest in U.S. history, topping the previous year’s record surplus of $122.7 billion. That represented the largest one year debt reduction in the nation’s history. So, what happened? Congressional spending exploded.
We need to look first at the reasons causing an historic surplus to morph into a frightening, potentially debilitating deficit. Most economists agree that the following reasons were lead causes for the deficit:
•The Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 and 2003 (added $2.3 trillion alone over ten years)
•The Medicare prescription drug bill
•Post 9/11 security spending, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
There are only a few fiscally responsible choices about how to fix the current deficit situation, almost all of which include reducing spending. Economists tell us that some spending (those with the highest “bang for the buck”) is necessary. Extending unemployment benefits, providing more aid for state governments, child tax credit rebates, acceleration of the 10% tax bracket, and those that target low and middle income households are specific possibilities that meet the criteria of necessary spending that provide the most stimulus for the economy.
Republicans campaigned heavily this year about reducing the budget deficit and pledged to not vote for any increased spending without offsets. That was how they felt until allowing tax cuts for the extremely wealthy expire was mentioned. Now they’re fine with not requiring cuts elsewhere to cover the costs. Or are they?
Beware. Is it paranoid to think that they may suddenly declare the deficit the enemy again once their newly-elected friends are seated in January? I don’t think so. In fact, they might use the one year “payroll tax holiday” to reintroduce the privatization of Social Security or even scrapping the whole program. After all, the wealthy that they love to protect don’t need it. And their attitude toward those who do need it is hateful, at the very least.
Look at what's on the table--
HELP FOR THE POOR & MIDDLE CLASS: Unemployment benefits
HELP FOR THE RICH: Estate tax cuts; Alternative Minimum Tax cuts; capital gains tax cuts; income tax cuts
Justice for all? I don’t think so.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
AMERICAN MANDATE?
According to the Republican leadership, most Americans
• Want the richest of the rich to have additional tax breaks.
• Don’t want those who are unemployed to have continued benefits.
• Don’t want a nuclear treaty with Russia.
• Think that U.S. Representatives who make an average of $765,000 a year will look out for us.
• Think that U.S. Senators who make an average of $2.4 million annually will look out for us.
• Don’t care that the top 0.01% averaged 976 times more income than 90% of us.
• Don’t care that the top 10% owned 71.5% of the country’s wealth in 2007.
• Don’t care that the lowest 50% of us owned only 2.5% of the U.S. wealth.
• Don’t care that the top 1% owned almost 51% of the U.S. Stocks, Bonds, and Mutual Funds.
• Don’t care that the bottom 50% of us owned only one half of one percent of those.
• Want to raise retirement age, even though the rich are the only ones who live longer.
• Think it’s okay that CEOs’ pay was up 298.2% in 2006, adjusting for inflation.
• Think it’s okay that minimum wage fell by 9.3% in 2006, adjusting for inflation.
• Don’t care that corporations that yell the loudest actually paid less in taxes than the rest of us.
• Don’t care that people who make less than $106,800 pay 6.2% of their salary to Social Security, while those who make $1 million only pay 0.66% of theirs into Social Security.
• Want to go into debt an additional $114 BILLION dollars each year to extend Bush Tax Cuts for the rich.
• Don’t care that our personal savings dropped from a high in 1982 of 10.9% to a low of 1.4% in 2005.
• Want the U.S. to spend more money on defense than all the rest of the countries on Earth combined—including China.
• Want women to be paid less than men doing the same job.
• Don’t care that the difference between the wealthiest and the median household income increased from 131 times (1983) to 190 times in 2004.
• Think it’s okay that the middle class has paid income taxes at the same rate for 50 years--since 1960.
• Think it’s okay that tax rates for the top 0.01% decreased from a high of about 75% around 1972 to the current rate of 35%.
• Don’t really care if everyone has health care coverage.
• Want to protect doctors who maim or kill people through negligence, but don’t want to protect the individuals and/or families who suffer by limiting the amounts paid.
• Think it’s okay for corporations to hold $2 Trillion in profits as ransom for getting even more tax breaks.
Are these truly things Americans want? Not the ones I talk to!
America, wake up. Who are our politicians looking out for? Let them know that we want them looking out for the vast majority of us and not for the wealthiest few! We have had an unspoken social contract for many, many years that assured everyone that we would look out for one another. Our politics affirmed that throughout “the good old days” that we all remember so fondly.
As one of Oklahoma’s own, J.C. Watts, said in 2000 about the budget surplus left from the Clinton years, that the GOP wanted 90% to be used to pay down our debt, and that the other 10% be used to "take care of a lot of priorities we have, like prescription drugs, making sure that our education needs are met, making sure some of our national security needs are met, and doing that while at the same time protecting the Social Security surplus and the Medicare surplus."
Just ten years ago, those were the GOP’s top priorities? What a difference 10 years can make!
We still need to protect Social Security (raise the maximum taxable amount so that the rich pay the same percentage as the rest of us). But we cannot afford extending tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy, especially since doing so doesn’t help the economy or improve employment. (Hint: it didn’t at any time during the past 9 years since they were implemented. In fact, corporations had record-breaking profits and gave sky-high bonuses to executives.) We must take care of our unemployed. We have to ensure that our educational system graduates more students and that young people can afford to attend community colleges, technology schools, or universities. We have to protect our country at the same time. Our infrastructure needs dramatic renovations. And, we must continue Health Care Reform that is so vital to all of us.
It will take a while to alleviate the deficit we have now. Bill Clinton successfully took a budget deficit of $290.3 Billion and turned it into a $128.2 Billion surplus, but it took over four years for see the turn-around. And, we weren’t going through one of the most severe recessions ever at that time. We have to make common sense changes.
Helping one another is a cornerstone of America that has served us well for many, many years. It never was, and never will be, right to ignore those around us who are suffering, while lining the pockets of the extremely wealthy.
• Want the richest of the rich to have additional tax breaks.
• Don’t want those who are unemployed to have continued benefits.
• Don’t want a nuclear treaty with Russia.
• Think that U.S. Representatives who make an average of $765,000 a year will look out for us.
• Think that U.S. Senators who make an average of $2.4 million annually will look out for us.
• Don’t care that the top 0.01% averaged 976 times more income than 90% of us.
• Don’t care that the top 10% owned 71.5% of the country’s wealth in 2007.
• Don’t care that the lowest 50% of us owned only 2.5% of the U.S. wealth.
• Don’t care that the top 1% owned almost 51% of the U.S. Stocks, Bonds, and Mutual Funds.
• Don’t care that the bottom 50% of us owned only one half of one percent of those.
• Want to raise retirement age, even though the rich are the only ones who live longer.
• Think it’s okay that CEOs’ pay was up 298.2% in 2006, adjusting for inflation.
• Think it’s okay that minimum wage fell by 9.3% in 2006, adjusting for inflation.
• Don’t care that corporations that yell the loudest actually paid less in taxes than the rest of us.
• Don’t care that people who make less than $106,800 pay 6.2% of their salary to Social Security, while those who make $1 million only pay 0.66% of theirs into Social Security.
• Want to go into debt an additional $114 BILLION dollars each year to extend Bush Tax Cuts for the rich.
• Don’t care that our personal savings dropped from a high in 1982 of 10.9% to a low of 1.4% in 2005.
• Want the U.S. to spend more money on defense than all the rest of the countries on Earth combined—including China.
• Want women to be paid less than men doing the same job.
• Don’t care that the difference between the wealthiest and the median household income increased from 131 times (1983) to 190 times in 2004.
• Think it’s okay that the middle class has paid income taxes at the same rate for 50 years--since 1960.
• Think it’s okay that tax rates for the top 0.01% decreased from a high of about 75% around 1972 to the current rate of 35%.
• Don’t really care if everyone has health care coverage.
• Want to protect doctors who maim or kill people through negligence, but don’t want to protect the individuals and/or families who suffer by limiting the amounts paid.
• Think it’s okay for corporations to hold $2 Trillion in profits as ransom for getting even more tax breaks.
Are these truly things Americans want? Not the ones I talk to!
America, wake up. Who are our politicians looking out for? Let them know that we want them looking out for the vast majority of us and not for the wealthiest few! We have had an unspoken social contract for many, many years that assured everyone that we would look out for one another. Our politics affirmed that throughout “the good old days” that we all remember so fondly.
As one of Oklahoma’s own, J.C. Watts, said in 2000 about the budget surplus left from the Clinton years, that the GOP wanted 90% to be used to pay down our debt, and that the other 10% be used to "take care of a lot of priorities we have, like prescription drugs, making sure that our education needs are met, making sure some of our national security needs are met, and doing that while at the same time protecting the Social Security surplus and the Medicare surplus."
Just ten years ago, those were the GOP’s top priorities? What a difference 10 years can make!
We still need to protect Social Security (raise the maximum taxable amount so that the rich pay the same percentage as the rest of us). But we cannot afford extending tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy, especially since doing so doesn’t help the economy or improve employment. (Hint: it didn’t at any time during the past 9 years since they were implemented. In fact, corporations had record-breaking profits and gave sky-high bonuses to executives.) We must take care of our unemployed. We have to ensure that our educational system graduates more students and that young people can afford to attend community colleges, technology schools, or universities. We have to protect our country at the same time. Our infrastructure needs dramatic renovations. And, we must continue Health Care Reform that is so vital to all of us.
It will take a while to alleviate the deficit we have now. Bill Clinton successfully took a budget deficit of $290.3 Billion and turned it into a $128.2 Billion surplus, but it took over four years for see the turn-around. And, we weren’t going through one of the most severe recessions ever at that time. We have to make common sense changes.
Helping one another is a cornerstone of America that has served us well for many, many years. It never was, and never will be, right to ignore those around us who are suffering, while lining the pockets of the extremely wealthy.
DISTRACT AND DIVIDE
What got us where we are is listening to the old “distract and divide” tactic that those who are perpetrating these robberies are orchestrating. They get us riled about pat-downs at airports (a perfectly legitimate argument about personal intrusion that can, and should, be discussed) to distract us from discussing far more important issues.
The week of the “pat down” controversy, important legislation slipped through while the media bemoaned the fact that people might be inconvenienced at airports.
• Extended unemployment benefits for long-term unemployed has one day to be ratified.
• The New START Treaty has stalled.
• The Paycheck Fairness Act was voted down.
Why were these so important?
Long-term unemployment affects 2 million in Dec. alone. There is currently one job available for every 5 to 6 who are unemployed. Jobs for those who lost theirs in construction or manufacturing are even harder to find.
Extending unemployment benefits stimulates the economy because the unemployed will spend their money—on rent, groceries, gasoline, clothing, etc.
As for the New START Treaty, read Sen. Jon Kyl’s words (the one who single-handedly held this bill hostage) just last year, “I urge my colleagues to consider what will happen on December 6, [2009] the day after the expiration of that agreement. For the first time in 15 years, an extensive set of verification, notification, elimination and other confidence building measures will expire. The U.S. will lose a significant source of information that has allowed it to have confidence in its ability to understand Russian strategic nuclear forces.” He was right at the time, but evidently that doesn’t matter now. It’s more important to block any legislation from the current administration.
The Paycheck Fairness Act vote sets equal pay issues back once again. Women still earn 77 cents on each dollar that men make for the same job, only pennies a year above what they made in 1960. Every single Republican in the Senate voted against this bill.
The week of the “pat down” controversy, important legislation slipped through while the media bemoaned the fact that people might be inconvenienced at airports.
• Extended unemployment benefits for long-term unemployed has one day to be ratified.
• The New START Treaty has stalled.
• The Paycheck Fairness Act was voted down.
Why were these so important?
Long-term unemployment affects 2 million in Dec. alone. There is currently one job available for every 5 to 6 who are unemployed. Jobs for those who lost theirs in construction or manufacturing are even harder to find.
Extending unemployment benefits stimulates the economy because the unemployed will spend their money—on rent, groceries, gasoline, clothing, etc.
As for the New START Treaty, read Sen. Jon Kyl’s words (the one who single-handedly held this bill hostage) just last year, “I urge my colleagues to consider what will happen on December 6, [2009] the day after the expiration of that agreement. For the first time in 15 years, an extensive set of verification, notification, elimination and other confidence building measures will expire. The U.S. will lose a significant source of information that has allowed it to have confidence in its ability to understand Russian strategic nuclear forces.” He was right at the time, but evidently that doesn’t matter now. It’s more important to block any legislation from the current administration.
The Paycheck Fairness Act vote sets equal pay issues back once again. Women still earn 77 cents on each dollar that men make for the same job, only pennies a year above what they made in 1960. Every single Republican in the Senate voted against this bill.
THE RICH ARE NOT THE ENEMY
Warren Buffett is rich; so is Bill Gates. Each has worked hard, accomplished a lot, and profited well. Kudos to them!
Both are extremely generous, too, and have asked other fellow billionaires to do as they have both done—pledge that a minimum of 50% of their wealth go to philanthropy. Mr. Buffett, additionally, the third richest man in the world, has stated that "I think that people at the high end, people like myself, should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it.” He continued, "The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on." There are at least 40 who have agreed to their request, including one Oklahoman—George B. Kaiser.
Even better, another group of millionaires has sent a letter to President Obama that states, “For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you allow tax cuts on incomes over $1,000,000 to expire at the end of this year as scheduled.
We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more.
We have done very well over the last several years. Now, during our nation’s moment of need, we are eager to do our fair share. We don’t need more tax cuts, and we understand that cutting our taxes will increase the deficit and the debt burden carried by other taxpayers. The country needs to meet its financial obligations in a just and responsible way.
Letting tax cuts for incomes over $1,000,000 expire, is an important step in that direction.”
That letter was signed by forty-five individuals or families.
The problem is NOT the rich themselves. Instead, the real problem is that there are too many politicians who cater to the rich who aren’t participating in the ideas listed above, the ones who are the greedy wealthy, the ones who will always want more, and the ones who don’t care about those who aren’t wealthy.
The problem is that 98% of Americans are NOT rich and we’re not being represented well by some legislators. 77.4% of us made less than $74,999, according to the 2000 census. One would think a larger number of our Congressional delegation would think about legislating with us in mind.
More than ever before in our lifetimes, our families and friends are desperate—unsuccessfully seeking jobs, losing their homes, facing possible bankruptcy, unsure where their next meal will come from, unable to provide necessities for their children, are inadequately insured, unskilled, under-educated, and lack adequate savings.
Shared sacrifices? These are the ones who have worked for and helped the ultra-rich make their fortunes while losing their jobs when companies closed and the work was sent overseas, sent their children, spouses, and parents to fight our wars, purchased the goods that make our economy work, had no net increase in income for ten years, endured higher and higher health care costs, rising college tuition for their children, and contributed higher percentages of tax receipts than large corporations.
The wealthy have done well, very well. The rest of us, not so much. The idea of shared sacrifice is great. The middle class and low income families have sacrificed immensely in the past decade. The richest of the rich have not suffered. In fact, they have done extremely well, so well that between 2002 and 2007 the incomes of the top 1% grew more than ten times faster than the income of the bottom 90% of households.
It’s time our legislators said, “Enough sacrificing for the poor and the middle class. They have suffered sufficiently already!”
There are plenty of ways to battle budget deficits without making things worse for the majority of us.
Both are extremely generous, too, and have asked other fellow billionaires to do as they have both done—pledge that a minimum of 50% of their wealth go to philanthropy. Mr. Buffett, additionally, the third richest man in the world, has stated that "I think that people at the high end, people like myself, should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it.” He continued, "The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on." There are at least 40 who have agreed to their request, including one Oklahoman—George B. Kaiser.
Even better, another group of millionaires has sent a letter to President Obama that states, “For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you allow tax cuts on incomes over $1,000,000 to expire at the end of this year as scheduled.
We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more.
We have done very well over the last several years. Now, during our nation’s moment of need, we are eager to do our fair share. We don’t need more tax cuts, and we understand that cutting our taxes will increase the deficit and the debt burden carried by other taxpayers. The country needs to meet its financial obligations in a just and responsible way.
Letting tax cuts for incomes over $1,000,000 expire, is an important step in that direction.”
That letter was signed by forty-five individuals or families.
The problem is NOT the rich themselves. Instead, the real problem is that there are too many politicians who cater to the rich who aren’t participating in the ideas listed above, the ones who are the greedy wealthy, the ones who will always want more, and the ones who don’t care about those who aren’t wealthy.
The problem is that 98% of Americans are NOT rich and we’re not being represented well by some legislators. 77.4% of us made less than $74,999, according to the 2000 census. One would think a larger number of our Congressional delegation would think about legislating with us in mind.
More than ever before in our lifetimes, our families and friends are desperate—unsuccessfully seeking jobs, losing their homes, facing possible bankruptcy, unsure where their next meal will come from, unable to provide necessities for their children, are inadequately insured, unskilled, under-educated, and lack adequate savings.
Shared sacrifices? These are the ones who have worked for and helped the ultra-rich make their fortunes while losing their jobs when companies closed and the work was sent overseas, sent their children, spouses, and parents to fight our wars, purchased the goods that make our economy work, had no net increase in income for ten years, endured higher and higher health care costs, rising college tuition for their children, and contributed higher percentages of tax receipts than large corporations.
The wealthy have done well, very well. The rest of us, not so much. The idea of shared sacrifice is great. The middle class and low income families have sacrificed immensely in the past decade. The richest of the rich have not suffered. In fact, they have done extremely well, so well that between 2002 and 2007 the incomes of the top 1% grew more than ten times faster than the income of the bottom 90% of households.
It’s time our legislators said, “Enough sacrificing for the poor and the middle class. They have suffered sufficiently already!”
There are plenty of ways to battle budget deficits without making things worse for the majority of us.
INCOME GAP FACTS
The top 1/100 of 1% averages 976 TIMES more income than the other 90% combined—HIGHER than 1928 before the Great Depression.
The top 10% owned 71.5% of wealth in 2007. The lowest 50% owned only 2.5% of US wealth.
The top 1% owned almost 51% of US Stocks, bonds and mutual funds, but the bottom 50% owned only ½ of 1%.
CEOs’ pay was UP 298.2% in 2006 while minimum wage FELL by 9.3%. (Both adjusted for inflation.)
Income tax rates for the top group were in the 90% range since Eisenhower, until Johnson lowered them into the 70 percentiles, where they remained until 1982.
In the 1980s, the top marginal tax rate DROPPED from 70% to 38.5%. Congress is unwilling to let the rate revert to 2001 rate of 39.6%.
With the Bush Tax Cuts, 67% of the funds went to the top 20% income bracket.
After-tax income of the top 1% of income earners went up 139%.
Those from the middle class had increases of only 17%.
Wal-Mart’s CEO earns more in one hour than his employees earn in a year.
An average S&P 500’s CEO makes 319 times MORE than the average American worker. In the 1970’s that ratio was 30 to 1.
US corporations hit record high profits of $1,660,000,000,000 at the end of October 2010.
For 30+ years, US economic policies helped the rich get richer, while reducing their tax burden.
If income inequality continues at its current pace, the U.S. Dept. of Labor says the U.S. economy will look like Mexico’s by 2043.
When will Congress stand up for the middle class again?
The top 10% owned 71.5% of wealth in 2007. The lowest 50% owned only 2.5% of US wealth.
The top 1% owned almost 51% of US Stocks, bonds and mutual funds, but the bottom 50% owned only ½ of 1%.
CEOs’ pay was UP 298.2% in 2006 while minimum wage FELL by 9.3%. (Both adjusted for inflation.)
Income tax rates for the top group were in the 90% range since Eisenhower, until Johnson lowered them into the 70 percentiles, where they remained until 1982.
In the 1980s, the top marginal tax rate DROPPED from 70% to 38.5%. Congress is unwilling to let the rate revert to 2001 rate of 39.6%.
With the Bush Tax Cuts, 67% of the funds went to the top 20% income bracket.
After-tax income of the top 1% of income earners went up 139%.
Those from the middle class had increases of only 17%.
Wal-Mart’s CEO earns more in one hour than his employees earn in a year.
An average S&P 500’s CEO makes 319 times MORE than the average American worker. In the 1970’s that ratio was 30 to 1.
US corporations hit record high profits of $1,660,000,000,000 at the end of October 2010.
For 30+ years, US economic policies helped the rich get richer, while reducing their tax burden.
If income inequality continues at its current pace, the U.S. Dept. of Labor says the U.S. economy will look like Mexico’s by 2043.
When will Congress stand up for the middle class again?
CAT FOOD OR CAVIER?
That choice is nearer than one might think. The difference between America’s poor and our ultra-rich has increased dangerously in the recent past. To make the problem worse, many of our elected Congressional leaders seem to actually think that all of us want them to cater to the Richie Rich’s of the country and that we are content with the leftovers.
Some in Congress think it’s more important to continue tax cuts for a few ultra-rich than to help the 15.1 million jobless Americans. Neither affects me and I vote to help our most vulnerable.
Why? There are several reasons. The income gap between the richest 0.01% and the bottom 90% has reached a level higher than it was in 1928 just before the Great Depression. In other words, the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer—much, much richer. Congressional legislation since the 1980s dramatically shifted its emphasis toward helping the wealthy and corporations succeed even more, beginning with lowering their taxes rates. From about 1935 to 1982, the top marginal tax rate ranged from around 80% to a high of 95% in the early 1940s. It remained above 80% until 1963 and was in the 90% range for ten years from the early 1950s until about 1963.
Unemployment
The newest argument for discontinuing unemployment extensions is that there’s not a plan to pay for them.
Unemployment isn’t real to any of us until it actually affects us. Employers (not employees) have paid into the system for every penny earned. It’s a “perk” of employment and is insurance that is meant to help you if you lose your job. The average weekly unemployment wages are $293. Normally, unemployment lasts 26 weeks, so the total income would equal $7618 annually, before taxes. Yes, taxes have to be paid on unemployment wages. ($7618 for 26 weeks is just less than poverty level for a family of three.)
Those who haven’t felt its effects and think that unemployment checks make people lazy and causes them to not look for jobs should try living on those wages. Try it while trying to pay bills, fending off depression, applying for jobs knowing there are a minimum of five people applying for every available job in the U.S., and going through endless interviews (if and when one is even granted) to try to land a job. Keep in mind that the median jobless American enters unemployment with less than $250 in net savings. Combine those headaches with the knowledge that average insurance payments for a family are about $1172 monthly—exactly $61 more than four weeks of average unemployment.
Another problem facing the currently unemployed is that entire industries have been crippled, while others are still hiring. Laid off construction workers or those from manufacturing cannot transfer their skills to the fields that have openings, such as health care and education. It’s virtually impossible to adequately upgrade skills in a 26 week period while unemployment lasts, especially when there’s no extra money to do so.
America has to face our unemployment problem head on and make some tough decisions. This is not the time to ignore our most vulnerable citizens, though.
Some in Congress think it’s more important to continue tax cuts for a few ultra-rich than to help the 15.1 million jobless Americans. Neither affects me and I vote to help our most vulnerable.
Why? There are several reasons. The income gap between the richest 0.01% and the bottom 90% has reached a level higher than it was in 1928 just before the Great Depression. In other words, the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer—much, much richer. Congressional legislation since the 1980s dramatically shifted its emphasis toward helping the wealthy and corporations succeed even more, beginning with lowering their taxes rates. From about 1935 to 1982, the top marginal tax rate ranged from around 80% to a high of 95% in the early 1940s. It remained above 80% until 1963 and was in the 90% range for ten years from the early 1950s until about 1963.
Unemployment
The newest argument for discontinuing unemployment extensions is that there’s not a plan to pay for them.
Unemployment isn’t real to any of us until it actually affects us. Employers (not employees) have paid into the system for every penny earned. It’s a “perk” of employment and is insurance that is meant to help you if you lose your job. The average weekly unemployment wages are $293. Normally, unemployment lasts 26 weeks, so the total income would equal $7618 annually, before taxes. Yes, taxes have to be paid on unemployment wages. ($7618 for 26 weeks is just less than poverty level for a family of three.)
Those who haven’t felt its effects and think that unemployment checks make people lazy and causes them to not look for jobs should try living on those wages. Try it while trying to pay bills, fending off depression, applying for jobs knowing there are a minimum of five people applying for every available job in the U.S., and going through endless interviews (if and when one is even granted) to try to land a job. Keep in mind that the median jobless American enters unemployment with less than $250 in net savings. Combine those headaches with the knowledge that average insurance payments for a family are about $1172 monthly—exactly $61 more than four weeks of average unemployment.
Another problem facing the currently unemployed is that entire industries have been crippled, while others are still hiring. Laid off construction workers or those from manufacturing cannot transfer their skills to the fields that have openings, such as health care and education. It’s virtually impossible to adequately upgrade skills in a 26 week period while unemployment lasts, especially when there’s no extra money to do so.
America has to face our unemployment problem head on and make some tough decisions. This is not the time to ignore our most vulnerable citizens, though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)