We cannot grow as a nation by using draconian “slash and burn” tactics. We need to reduce our budget deficit, but we have to do it rationally and incrementally.
In order to balance a budget, income (revenue) must equal outgo (spending). It’s that simple.
There are three ways to balance budgets: 1) cut spending until spending equals income; 2) increase income until it reaches the spending level; or 3) move both bars—spending and income—carefully and critically.
Some believe the first option is the only one. They are either ill-informed or not concerned about the implications of drastic cutting on the American people, its economy, and its future.
Option #2 could easily be accomplished by just increasing taxes at all levels—personal income, corporate, Social Security and other payroll taxes, excise and estate taxes.
The only viable, adult option is the third one. It takes grownups, though, to critically analyze both spending and revenue resources, while protecting the most vulnerable and creating a climate where businesses can thrive.
It can be done.
America’s income (revenue) comes from the following: Individual income taxes; Corporate income taxes; Social Security and other payroll taxes; Excise taxes; Estate and gift taxes; Customs duties; and Other.
America’s spending (program costs) is divided into two main categories: Discretionary and Mandatory. Discretionary spending includes Defense and Other. Mandatory spending involves Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Troubled Asset Relief, Jobs Initiatives, and Other. The final category (Other) includes interest paid on debt and potential disaster costs.
Recent actions that affected any of the items listed above (all involve revenue sources):
• continuation of the Bush Tax Cuts for all income levels
• estate tax cuts;
• corporate income tax incentives; and
• reduction of the Social Security tax for individuals
Each of those actions drastically reduced our revenue resources, which effectively increased our deficit.
That left no choices—the only option at that point was to drastically slash spending. By increasing the deficit prior to complaining about the deficit, more spending cuts than were originally necessary had to be proposed.
This approach is the Republican plan. It’s been carried out at the state level (Wisconsin, Ohio, etc.), with devastating effects in many cases and is being continued at the federal level.
It’s time for the American people nationwide to stand and be heard!
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
DON'T LET OKLAHOMA BECOME A DICTATORSHIP
Remember the Republican mantra that government is bad? It seems that it’s only bad if they’re not controlling it! Oklahoma may be the first state to actually gain the governmental control the party evidently so desperately wants.
Newly-elected Governor Mary Fallin may soon be allowed to hire and fire state board and commission members at any time, at will (HB 1208).
The state’s Board of Education is targeted as one of the first to be included. Ms Fallin may also change the board’s makeup from private citizens, as it was previously, to include the governor herself and three statewide officials—two of whom would be appointed by the governor (via SB 435). So, the “new” Board of Education would be run by the governor, with two members of the board appointed by her. Guess what direction that board would take.
Previously elected positions of state superintendent, treasurer, insurance commissioner and labor commissioner would no longer exist. Instead, the governor would appoint those officers (SB 622). It doesn’t matter what the people want—they now have a governor who will micro-manage all facets of state government.
Currently, the Judicial Nominating Commission presents the governor with three acceptable names for judicial appointments. The governor then selects one from those submitted. The state’s Judicial Nominating Commission consists of 13 members. Six are appointed by the governor, six are selected by the Oklahoma Bar Association, and the final member is selected at large by the other twelve. None of the gubernatorial appointees can be a licensed attorney in Oklahoma, and each must come from a different Congressional District. Two more at-large members were recently added—one appointed by the Speaker of the Oklahoma House and the other by the President Pro Tempore of the Oklahoma Senate.
SB 641 would add Senate confirmation to the above requirements, if the voters agree.
Under Senate Joint Resolution 36, though, the state’s Judicial Nominating Commission would no longer exist and the governor would have free reign to fill judicial openings as he/she sees fit, subject to Senate confirmation only.
This reeks of a dictatorship under the guise of ensuring that elected officials, especially the governor, are effective, according to Republican spokespersons.
When did Oklahomans vote to hand the governor all-inclusive dictatorial powers? That certainly wasn’t part of the last election’s discussions!
What happened to division of power? There are two possibilities: 1) Republicans don’t know there’s a reason our government has three branches or 2) Republicans simply do not care.
Either option is unacceptable and should not be allowed now, or at any time in the future.
Newly-elected Governor Mary Fallin may soon be allowed to hire and fire state board and commission members at any time, at will (HB 1208).
The state’s Board of Education is targeted as one of the first to be included. Ms Fallin may also change the board’s makeup from private citizens, as it was previously, to include the governor herself and three statewide officials—two of whom would be appointed by the governor (via SB 435). So, the “new” Board of Education would be run by the governor, with two members of the board appointed by her. Guess what direction that board would take.
Previously elected positions of state superintendent, treasurer, insurance commissioner and labor commissioner would no longer exist. Instead, the governor would appoint those officers (SB 622). It doesn’t matter what the people want—they now have a governor who will micro-manage all facets of state government.
Currently, the Judicial Nominating Commission presents the governor with three acceptable names for judicial appointments. The governor then selects one from those submitted. The state’s Judicial Nominating Commission consists of 13 members. Six are appointed by the governor, six are selected by the Oklahoma Bar Association, and the final member is selected at large by the other twelve. None of the gubernatorial appointees can be a licensed attorney in Oklahoma, and each must come from a different Congressional District. Two more at-large members were recently added—one appointed by the Speaker of the Oklahoma House and the other by the President Pro Tempore of the Oklahoma Senate.
SB 641 would add Senate confirmation to the above requirements, if the voters agree.
Under Senate Joint Resolution 36, though, the state’s Judicial Nominating Commission would no longer exist and the governor would have free reign to fill judicial openings as he/she sees fit, subject to Senate confirmation only.
This reeks of a dictatorship under the guise of ensuring that elected officials, especially the governor, are effective, according to Republican spokespersons.
When did Oklahomans vote to hand the governor all-inclusive dictatorial powers? That certainly wasn’t part of the last election’s discussions!
What happened to division of power? There are two possibilities: 1) Republicans don’t know there’s a reason our government has three branches or 2) Republicans simply do not care.
Either option is unacceptable and should not be allowed now, or at any time in the future.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
PRO-LIFE? CALL IT WHAT YOU REALLY MEAN!
The correct term for what you really want is “Pro-BIRTH.”
Pro-life is a worthy goal, but life only begins at birth. If you’re truly “pro-LIFE” you would not strip funding for WIC. WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) provides Federal grants to States for supplemental foods, health care referrals, and nutrition education for low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum women, and to infants and children up to age five who are found to be at nutritional risk.
If you were truly “pro-LIFE” you would not destroy funding for Title X programs. Title X is the only federal grant program dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services. The Title X program is designed to provide access to contraceptive services, supplies and information to all who want and need them. By law, priority is given to persons from low-income families.
Those who really believe in what it means to be “pro-LIFE” would not demolish programs like Head Start. Head Start’s mission is to improve the lives of low-income children by providing quality comprehensive child development services that are family focused, including education, health, nutrition and mental health. That mission is accomplished by involving parents in the total operation and administration of the program and supporting the growth of children, families and staff through encouragement, nurturing, education and empowerment.
Do not judge this next statement until you read the rest of this post!
I am proud to state that I am “pro-LIFE” and always will be. That’s what Democrats believe. We do not believe it’s right for any fetus to be condemned prior to birth to a life of poverty with no chance for its parents to pay for basic health care, food, or shelter. We don’t believe it’s right for any fetus to be “saved” in order to endure abuse. We don’t believe it’s compassionate to banish that fetus to a lifetime of being unwanted. We do not believe Jesus would want that child to be a social outcast if he/she has the “wrong” skin color, or religious beliefs, or sexual preference.
We are “pro-LIFE” because we believe all children—all skin colors, all religious beliefs, all sexual preferences, all ethnicities, etc.—should have equal rights in America and that the American Dream should be accessible to them.
Don’t talk to me about “pro-BIRTH” until you, like I have, look into a ten year old’s eyes while she’s fighting for her life in the hospital after being brutally beaten, raped, and left for dead! It’s not a pretty sight. The worst part was later when her parents had to explain to her what she’d also have to endure—more invasion of her privacy as she suffered through pregnancy and STD testing.
Don’t tell me how precious “pro-BIRTH” thinking is until you, like I have, listen to a mother tell about her husband raping her five year old daughter anally. Yes, it’s ugly and disgusting, but it happens.
I don’t want to hear your self-righteous “pro-BIRTH” stance until you, like I have, hear a twelve year old tell you she’s pregnant on the last day of school. Her life changed dramatically from that point forward.
Go ahead and be “pro-BIRTH.” That’s fine, as long as you accompany that position with a commitment to providing that unborn child with the necessities of LIFE: food, health, shelter, and education. Throw in a chance at the American Dream and I’ll be on your side.
Until then, I’m a proud “pro-LIFE, pro-CHOICE” American!
Pro-life is a worthy goal, but life only begins at birth. If you’re truly “pro-LIFE” you would not strip funding for WIC. WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) provides Federal grants to States for supplemental foods, health care referrals, and nutrition education for low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum women, and to infants and children up to age five who are found to be at nutritional risk.
If you were truly “pro-LIFE” you would not destroy funding for Title X programs. Title X is the only federal grant program dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services. The Title X program is designed to provide access to contraceptive services, supplies and information to all who want and need them. By law, priority is given to persons from low-income families.
Those who really believe in what it means to be “pro-LIFE” would not demolish programs like Head Start. Head Start’s mission is to improve the lives of low-income children by providing quality comprehensive child development services that are family focused, including education, health, nutrition and mental health. That mission is accomplished by involving parents in the total operation and administration of the program and supporting the growth of children, families and staff through encouragement, nurturing, education and empowerment.
Do not judge this next statement until you read the rest of this post!
I am proud to state that I am “pro-LIFE” and always will be. That’s what Democrats believe. We do not believe it’s right for any fetus to be condemned prior to birth to a life of poverty with no chance for its parents to pay for basic health care, food, or shelter. We don’t believe it’s right for any fetus to be “saved” in order to endure abuse. We don’t believe it’s compassionate to banish that fetus to a lifetime of being unwanted. We do not believe Jesus would want that child to be a social outcast if he/she has the “wrong” skin color, or religious beliefs, or sexual preference.
We are “pro-LIFE” because we believe all children—all skin colors, all religious beliefs, all sexual preferences, all ethnicities, etc.—should have equal rights in America and that the American Dream should be accessible to them.
Don’t talk to me about “pro-BIRTH” until you, like I have, look into a ten year old’s eyes while she’s fighting for her life in the hospital after being brutally beaten, raped, and left for dead! It’s not a pretty sight. The worst part was later when her parents had to explain to her what she’d also have to endure—more invasion of her privacy as she suffered through pregnancy and STD testing.
Don’t tell me how precious “pro-BIRTH” thinking is until you, like I have, listen to a mother tell about her husband raping her five year old daughter anally. Yes, it’s ugly and disgusting, but it happens.
I don’t want to hear your self-righteous “pro-BIRTH” stance until you, like I have, hear a twelve year old tell you she’s pregnant on the last day of school. Her life changed dramatically from that point forward.
Go ahead and be “pro-BIRTH.” That’s fine, as long as you accompany that position with a commitment to providing that unborn child with the necessities of LIFE: food, health, shelter, and education. Throw in a chance at the American Dream and I’ll be on your side.
Until then, I’m a proud “pro-LIFE, pro-CHOICE” American!
WHAT WOULD JESUS CUT?
Living in the heart of the Bible belt, it’s hard not to discuss politics and religion in the same conversation. Many people base their political beliefs from their religious beliefs. The Jesus I know would not vote to eliminate vital resources to “the least of these” while drastically increasing funding for corporations that thrive due to the labor of the very ones about whom Jesus speaks. Allow rich corporations to pay for elections? I don’t think so.
Jesus sought out the poor, the hungry, and the oppressed. He implores us in Matthew 25: 35-40 to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, take in strangers, clothe those who are naked, visit the sick and those who are imprisoned. He tells us that when we do, we have done so to Him.
Our country has traditionally done just that. From the 1930’s and 1940’s (when most of the legislation was passed that protected the “least of these”), the poor and the middle class pursued the American Dream and we prospered. Our corporations thrived, too, but the rest of us moved upward at about the same pace as the very rich. Times were great. Our ancestors worked hard, bought homes—with televisions, cars, washers and dryers, and all the modern conveniences the corporations we worked for made. The wealthiest Americans made about 200 times more than the bottom 90% of us made, but they thrived and built more and made more. We were all happy. The American Dream was within reach for most of us.
From the early 1930’s until 1980, the top marginal tax rate was never less than 70%. In fact, from 1951 until 1963, the rate was above 90% for the top group. During all that time (over 40 years), the wealthiest Americans made about 200 times more than the bottom 90% of us.
It was not until the mid-1980’s that we stopped gaining ground. That’s when we were told that, by rewarding the very rich and their companies, we would also reap the benefits because it would “trickle down” to us eventually. It didn’t. We didn’t notice it much because we had done well and things stayed pretty much the same for us. The wealthiest became wealthier and, by 2006, were making 976 times what the bottom 90% of us were making.
In 1981, that top tax rate dropped from 70% to 69.125%. In 1982, it dropped again—to 50%, then to 38.5% in 1987, and further yet in 1988 to 28%.
By the mid-1980’s, the difference had rapidly grown to over 400 times more than what the bottom 90% made. It hasn’t been less than 350 times more since, and that didn’t last long!
By 2006, the difference between what the top 0.01% made had escalated to 976 times what 90% of us made.
The rich are getting much, much richer on the laboring backs of the rest of us. They’re getting richer by “buying” Congressional members who push through their agenda to reduce their taxes, eliminate regulations, and expand loopholes. And, now, after getting huge additional tax breaks, they want to take more. This time, though, they’re targeting “the least of these” by promoting the removal of Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, unions, regulations that protect us, health care for women, and so much more.
"I hope we shall . . . crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." --Thomas Jefferson
Jesus sought out the poor, the hungry, and the oppressed. He implores us in Matthew 25: 35-40 to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, take in strangers, clothe those who are naked, visit the sick and those who are imprisoned. He tells us that when we do, we have done so to Him.
Our country has traditionally done just that. From the 1930’s and 1940’s (when most of the legislation was passed that protected the “least of these”), the poor and the middle class pursued the American Dream and we prospered. Our corporations thrived, too, but the rest of us moved upward at about the same pace as the very rich. Times were great. Our ancestors worked hard, bought homes—with televisions, cars, washers and dryers, and all the modern conveniences the corporations we worked for made. The wealthiest Americans made about 200 times more than the bottom 90% of us made, but they thrived and built more and made more. We were all happy. The American Dream was within reach for most of us.
From the early 1930’s until 1980, the top marginal tax rate was never less than 70%. In fact, from 1951 until 1963, the rate was above 90% for the top group. During all that time (over 40 years), the wealthiest Americans made about 200 times more than the bottom 90% of us.
It was not until the mid-1980’s that we stopped gaining ground. That’s when we were told that, by rewarding the very rich and their companies, we would also reap the benefits because it would “trickle down” to us eventually. It didn’t. We didn’t notice it much because we had done well and things stayed pretty much the same for us. The wealthiest became wealthier and, by 2006, were making 976 times what the bottom 90% of us were making.
In 1981, that top tax rate dropped from 70% to 69.125%. In 1982, it dropped again—to 50%, then to 38.5% in 1987, and further yet in 1988 to 28%.
By the mid-1980’s, the difference had rapidly grown to over 400 times more than what the bottom 90% made. It hasn’t been less than 350 times more since, and that didn’t last long!
By 2006, the difference between what the top 0.01% made had escalated to 976 times what 90% of us made.
The rich are getting much, much richer on the laboring backs of the rest of us. They’re getting richer by “buying” Congressional members who push through their agenda to reduce their taxes, eliminate regulations, and expand loopholes. And, now, after getting huge additional tax breaks, they want to take more. This time, though, they’re targeting “the least of these” by promoting the removal of Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, unions, regulations that protect us, health care for women, and so much more.
"I hope we shall . . . crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." --Thomas Jefferson
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
INFRINGING ON OUR RIGHTS—AGAIN!
I just heard on NPR (I know! I shouldn’t be listening to it.) that by 2014 all cars must be built with rear-view cameras.
Are you as upset as I am about this intrusion on our rights!? Talk about government spying! Now they want to know who or what is behind our cars as we back out of our driveways! If your car’s camera can pick this up, you don’t think satellites can, too?
And, whose business is it who parks behind us? I certainly don’t want anyone knowing who is behind my car at any time!
If there’s a bicycle behind my car in my own driveway, whose business is it if I run over it! Certainly not Big Brother’s! If my child leaves his/her bicycle in the driveway, it deserves to be crushed.
If a child runs behind my car as I’m leaving the Wal Mart, his parents shouldn’t complain if I run over him. They should have been watching him more carefully!
As for dogs and cats—well, we have far too many that are not supervised correctly as it is! If they’re not on leashes, they shouldn’t be close to my house!
This is absolutely going too far!
Are you as upset as I am about this intrusion on our rights!? Talk about government spying! Now they want to know who or what is behind our cars as we back out of our driveways! If your car’s camera can pick this up, you don’t think satellites can, too?
And, whose business is it who parks behind us? I certainly don’t want anyone knowing who is behind my car at any time!
If there’s a bicycle behind my car in my own driveway, whose business is it if I run over it! Certainly not Big Brother’s! If my child leaves his/her bicycle in the driveway, it deserves to be crushed.
If a child runs behind my car as I’m leaving the Wal Mart, his parents shouldn’t complain if I run over him. They should have been watching him more carefully!
As for dogs and cats—well, we have far too many that are not supervised correctly as it is! If they’re not on leashes, they shouldn’t be close to my house!
This is absolutely going too far!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)