IMMIGRATION IRRITATION

America was founded by those who came here without permission, forcing the country’s original inhabitants out—pushing them further and further westward—and killing their food supply. First generation immigrants often fled their homelands for better lives for their children and to free themselves from oppressive ruling parties and religious conflicts. Immigrants today are doing the same things.

Some Americans criticize today’s immigrants for risking their lives in order to provide safer circumstances for their children—the same as our forefathers did, traveling across treacherous oceans with meager provisions and sickness and death to deal with. Some blame current immigrants for wanting to get out of harm’s way in their native countries where drug dealers often kill at will—the same as our ancestors did when fleeing burnings at the stake and executions.

Instead of criticizing them, why can’t we help them?

Leviticus is often quoted by the religious right, so look at what is said in the 19th chapter, verses 33 and 34 (King James Version): “And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself, for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” The New Life Version: “If a stranger lives with you in your land, do not do wrong to him. You should act toward the stranger who lives among you as you would toward one born among you. Love him as you love yourself. For you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

Should we not love our neighbors, no matter what the circumstances of their arrival? Should they not be treated as ones born among us?

We, too, were strangers long ago in Egypt and again in America a few centuries ago. When did we lose our empathy and condemn those doing the same things our ancestors did? When was forgiveness eliminated from the Christian vocabulary?

Could we not, as Christians, solve the problems of immigration with dignity and Christian love?

FLAT TAX FLAWS

Flat taxes (or “fair taxes” as they’re sometimes erroneously called) are flatly UNfair.

It theoretically sounds “fair” to tax everyone at the same percentage—until one looks at the facts.

HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION
Families struggling to make ends meet, making a median income of $40,000 annually will pay about 33% of their income for minimum housing expenses and another 17% for transportation (calculated at $3/gallon prices—too low, I know). Those two items capture 50% of their total income.

A family making $1 Million annually can pay $85,000/year for housing and $57,000 for transportation. They pay only 14.2% of their income for the same two items.

FOOD
Assume the wealthy family spends $73,000 on food annually ($200/day). That’s only 7.3% of their income.

The average family spends $4,656/year (a little over $1/day for a family of four) on food. That’s 11.18% of their income.

MEDICAL
Let’s consider that the average family spends $6,600/year for insurance and/or medical bills. That amounts to 15.84% of their income.

The wealthy family can afford to pay $33,600 (high estimate), which reduces their income by only 3.36%.

CLOTHING
The wealthiest family can spend $12,000/annually for clothing (1.2% of income).

The median income family may shop garage sales and thrift shops, buying clothes for a family of four on only $600/year. That comes to 1.44% of annual income on clothing.


Housing, transportation, food, medical costs, and clothing are necessities.

An average family will spend 94.9% of their income on NECESSITIES! They have exactly $2,124.41 left for emergencies, medical co-pays, savings, investments, college tuition savings, etc.

The wealthy family has spent only 56.46% of their income, leaving them with 43.54%--$435,400!

Costs are the same for all income levels. Rising housing, gas, and food prices won’t appreciably affect the wealthy, but can devastate an average family. One missed paycheck—due to layoffs, illness, etc—could bankrupt an average family.

Jefferson said, “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."

WHO DOESN'T PAY INCOME TAXES

We hear conservatives and liberals alike complain about how many people don’t pay income taxes. Those numbers are frequently inflated, but a New York Times article, written by Bruce Bartlett (who held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representative Jack Kemp and Ron Paul), helps set some records straight with up-to-date information.

The actual percentage of non-payers for 2011 is 46.4 percent (from the Tax Policy Center). Mr. Bartlett points out that the growth of the percentage of non-payers is “largely a result of Republican tax policies.” The earned-income tax credit (originated by Ford and expanded by both Reagan and Bush I, in lieu of raising minimum wages) was the main reason for lower incomes being largely exempted. Because of that, the percentage of non-payers rose from 19.2% to 25.2%.

In the 1990s George W. Bush’s GOP administration added a large child credit to the tax code. The percentage of non-tax payers jumped to 36.3%, as a result.

In 2011, 78,000 individuals making incomes of $211,000-$533,000 or more paid not one cent of income taxes. There are additionally 24,000 with incomes of $533,000-$2.2 Million that pay zero. Why? Bruce Bartlett says it’s because capital gains (taxed at only 15%) are a huge percentage of their incomes or they may have invested some or all of their wealth in tax-free municipal bonds.

These are the “Welfare Queens” who prey on tax loopholes to fill their own pockets.

A large percentage of those who paid no income taxes earned less than $16,812 in 2010. Many of them are part-time workers, youth working their way through school, unskilled laborers, or seniors trying to make ends meet.

Thomas Jefferson wrote James Madison in 1785, "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.”

This is far from a new concept. It worked for a very long time during America’s most prosperous years.

VOUCHERING EDUCATION

I have devoted most of my life, and almost all my career, to furthering public education. Unfortunately, it may be dying a slow death.

The K-12 system has already suffered enormous losses. Just last year 40% of all jobs lost in America were from public schools and it doesn’t look like that will improve soon. Vouchers and charter schools are taking over public education, which is not a good thing.

Vouchers (tax credits) like the ones proposed by the Oklahoma legislature are a joke. They include families making up to $122,379 annually, although they were sold as an opportunity for low-income children to attend private schools.

Well more than half of our population qualifies for the scholarships, which are capped at $5000 per student.

Of nine private schools in Okla. City and Tulsa, the tuition range is $5,655 to $16,475. The average was $11,011.33—which leaves “low income” families with a bill of $6,011.33! Truly low income families cannot afford that!

Post-secondary education is also facing direct hits by legislators around the nation. “For profit” colleges have popped up throughout our country, with devastating consequences for many students.

Public schools, technology centers, colleges, and universities have to abide by certain guidelines in order to maintain accreditation. Those guidelines ensure accountability and successful outcomes. We are extremely fortunate to have several quality post-secondary opportunities for youth in the area. The post-secondary schools work closely with workforce professionals and industries to provide courses that will lead to jobs in demand occupations that provide self-sufficient wages for our citizens.

The educators with whom I’ve had the privilege of working are professionals who’ve devoted their lives to providing valuable opportunities for young people—all young people, not just the privileged few. Some have forgone their own opportunities to make a lot of money to do so. Many teachers themselves live on “poverty wages” and their own children qualify for free or reduced rate lunches.

Children deserve to be valued by people who care deeply for them and their futures, instead of private industries that see them as “raw materials” used to make profits.

DISSERVICE TO OUR VETS

Mr. Santorum,

Pardon the lack of a proper salutation, but I just couldn’t bring myself to use Honorable with your name.

Your crude comments on June 6, 2011 about the reason so many of our American soldiers landed at Normandy did a huge disservice to those brave young men. The young men about whom you spoke parachuted into and landed on the beaches of Normandy to help make a better world and to eliminate the Nazi influence in Europe.

You think they put their lives on the line so that they could make their own choices about health care? Not even close! They did it for far loftier reasons than you can evidently imagine.

Those same young men are the gentleman I see on a regular basis at the Oklahoma Veterans’ Center—who are now in their mid-80’s to early 90’s—when I visit my almost 95 year old father, who’s a WWII veteran.

How many of those gentlemen do you really think can make their own decisions about health care? How many of them could afford to pay more out of pocket for their medical expenses? Some of those who were severely injured couldn’t make those decisions when they were in their 50’s, much less now.

My precious father received two five year degrees simultaneously after studying four total years—one in Architecture and one in Architectural Engineering. He was an extremely intelligent man who was raised by a single mother during the Great Depression. He would never have been able to attend college without the benefit of the G.I. Bill.

He participated in the National Youth Association (a WPA program for poor youth, providing “work study” projects at their schools) and learned skills that took him later to an Aircraft Mechanic program with Beechcraft in Wichita, Kansas, that eventually led him to become an aircraft inspector in England during the War. Two of his three brothers were involved in another WPA program, CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) that targeted unemployed, unmarried men from relief families, ages 18-25. Those two gentlemen both became successful citizens who provided well for their own families, as a result of that program.

My Daddy saw firsthand the devastation the Depression brought to his family and others. He still carefully tears Kleenex into smaller sections, a carryover from the days when they were a luxury.

He worked hard all his life, well into his eighties, but never made enough money to save a great deal. His Social Security and Medicare, along with access to veteran’s health care, have enabled him to survive. He’s one of the fortunate ones who has family to care for him and kept him at home until he was no longer able to physically get around on his own.

You should be most ashamed, though, for using a day intended to honor the sacrifices our WWII heroes, living and deceased, as political fodder.

LIVING ON SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE

Ask my 94 year old father if Social Security and/or Medicare should be “transformed.”

He was born in 1916 and raised by his uncle on a farm where he worked until he dropped out of high school. His family was not only poor, as he always said, “we were so poor, we pronounced it ‘pore’.” His grandmother offered him room and board at her house if he went back to school, so he did while working at a local department store.

After graduating from high school, he was admitted into an NYA (National Youth Administration) program, where he was elected student body president.

Soon afterward, his uncle helped him enroll in an aircraft mechanic program in Wichita, Kansas. While there, he was drafted into World War II. The company arranged for a deferral for him—twice. The third time, he decided he wouldn’t accept another deferral and he served in England as an aircraft inspector until after VE Day.

Following WWII, he enrolled at Okla. State University (then Oklahoma A&M). He enrolled in the architecture program and, in the next four years, completed two five year degrees—Architecture and Architectural Engineering.

After working about seven years for other architectural firms, he decided to go into business for himself. So, in 1957, he opened his own office.

Work was sporadic for many years and, although he was paid well upon completion of a project, he never had a steady salary, retirement, or company insurance. My mother worked her whole life, until it was cut short by cancer when she was 49 years old, with two daughters ages 17 and 18. Her Social Security benefits allowed both to attend college.

My father retired when he was in his 80’s and has lived entirely on his Social Security and Medicare since. Fortunately, those programs, along with his VA benefits, have enabled him to live with dignity. What, though, would have happened to him if he hadn’t had them?

My father has been a Republican all his life, but he would not support the “transformation” of these programs!

HISTORY IS REPEATING ITSELF

Throughout the 1800s, and well into the twentieth century, American workers were often subjected to working excessive hours in low paying jobs and dangerous, unsafe working conditions. Children worked alongside their parents, unable to get an education in order to help families put food on their tables.

When the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory caught fire and 146 women and girls died 100 years ago this year, public awareness peaked. The American people learned that many of the deaths were preventable because of locked exits and raw materials blocking other escape routes. Activists emerged and labor unions gained enough strength to help workers collectively bargain for livable wages, decent hours, regulations on child labor, and safety measures for the workplace.

Thanks to the efforts of labor unions, the U.S. has minimum wage laws, child labor laws, mandatory overtime pay for hours worked beyond designated workweek hours, and mostly sufficient workplace safety regulations that protect workers throughout our great nation. We shouldn’t have to worry about sweatshops in the 21st century. Or should we?

American corporations are shipping more and more jobs overseas in order to increase profits and please their shareholders. The only way that can be done is by reducing costs and, by hiring overseas workers, companies can pay far less than they’d have to pay for labor in the U.S., thereby reducing their costs.

As recently as December, 2010, just before Christmas, a Bangladesh garment factory making clothes for American companies burned under similar circumstances as the Triangle fire in New York City 100 years ago. They, too, had locked exits. Twenty-nine women and children died and over 100 were injured.

In 1911, the Triangle workers made $0.14 per hour. Almost 100 years later, in 2010, the Bangladesh workers made $0.28 per hour. And, the Bangladesh victims’ families were each given only $2080 compensation for their deaths.

We supported the sweatshop and their loathsome practices in Bangladesh if we’ve ever bought Baby Gap jeans (400,000 were destroyed in that fire) or other items made there for Gap (their largest client), Wal Mart, H&M, Target, or J.C. Penney.

97% of American clothing is now made overseas. We only produce 3 items of clothing for every 100 items sold here. We are not only allowing American corporations to exploit workers in other parts of the world, we are encouraging it every time we buy merchandise made elsewhere.

This is only one of several reasons American factories are moving their companies overseas. When we purchase goods made by poorly paid workers in unsafe workplaces, we’re essentially saying it’s okay to exploit workers, as long as they’re not Americans.

Human beings have rights—ALL humans—worldwide.

We want cheap goods, but at what cost to human life?

SOCIAL INSECURITY

Since when is Social Security an “entitlement” that is disposable?

Social Security was enacted in 1935 as a result of the massive unemployment that took place during the Great Depression “. . . to provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of federal old-age benefits . . .” It seems ironic that addressing a Constitutional value (promoting for the general welfare—see Preamble) is brushed aside so easily by those who profess to believe in its inherent values.

Many Americans work in industries that do not provide pensions for workers when they retire. More often than not, those are also the ones who make less than average wages, so savings are frequently non-existent. The Social Security system was developed to help people retire with dignity, by providing them with “deferred wages.” The individual pays into that system—by working! Employers contribute matching amounts, as part of their employees’ benefits.

The bottom line is that no one gets Social Security retirement benefits without working. They get money back that they and their employers have paid into that system. They are benefits earned—actual wages that they earned and paid into Social Security and the deferred wages earned that their employers contributed!

When you hear people talk about raising the retirement age because life expectancy has increased, remember that life expectancy has only significantly increased for the wealthy. In 1972, the life expectancy of a 60 year old male worker who made less than median income was 78. Workers in the top half of income distribution could expect to reach age 79. By 2001, the lower income man could expect to reach 80, while the higher income man’s life expectancy jumped to 85. Less than 40 years ago, there was a difference of one year life expectancy between the income groups, then it became a four year difference—just because of income.

There are ways to bolster Social Security that would keep it viable for many years and continue to fulfill the promise made by our ancestors in another era when times were also tough.

DEBT CEILING VOTE

Republicans have openly stated that their #1 goal is to defeat Pres. Obama. They have frankly said that the poor and middle classes need to pay more. They publicly acknowledge that protecting the richest Americans (and corporations) is their primary objective. They have candidly admitted that they reject governmental regulations or programs. They are demolishing programs that help the poor, disabled, elderly, unions, or middle class workers who don’t have lobbyists to represent them.

The GOP asked for $2 Trillion in spending cuts. The Obama administration offered $4 Trillion. Republican leadership said, “No.” If eliminating the debt is truly the goal, there’s no logical reason to reject the larger reduction.

Debt ceiling bills have traditionally been clean—bills that raised it, with no strings attached. Republicans decided they would use a necessary bill to get rid of programs they never liked—Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, regulatory agencies that ensure our safety, etc. It’s not only mean-spirited, it’s irresponsible.

What will happen if we don’t raise the debt ceiling? Looking at history is one of the best ways to find out.

In the spring of 1979, during a similar debate to what we’re having now, there was a last-minute approval of raising the debt limit. Because of the last-minute approval, a flood of investor demand for Treasury bills, and a series of technical glitches in processing a backlog of paperwork, $120 M of payments to Treasury bill holders were delayed. The problems were corrected, the bills were paid (late), but the U.S. paid a high price for it.

Technically this was not a default but a simple delay in payments. There were expensive consequences, though. The late payments resulted in an increase in interest rates of 0.6%, which added another $6 Billion annually to our debt.

Think about paying a credit card bill late. One late payment often causes other companies to increase their interest rates to protect themselves from becoming victims of future late payments.

It’s serious and our Congressional delegates need to understand that investors will punish the U.S., and its taxpayers, if checks stop showing up. Pass the bill.

GRIM FAIRY TALE

We can believe the fantasy that granting special favors to the extremely wealthy will miraculously make them decide to create hundreds of thousands of jobs.

We can rest assured that, if we lower taxes for corporations that have over $2,000,000,000,000.00 just sitting around, they will bring profits back to America, factories will reopen, and life will be good again.

We can hang on to the hope that if we all tighten our belts and sacrifice even more to make life rosier for billionaires that we can somehow afford to buy enough gas to get to work.

We can believe that when politicians refuse to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, they are really looking out for our best interests and we must work longer before we get the benefits we paid into Social Security or the medical assistance we also paid for. We can accept that paying more out of our own pockets is the only way these programs can continue to exist.

We can believe that eliminating programs that protect our health and safety really aren’t needed.

We can delude ourselves into thinking that public education really shouldn’t be for everyone—just the ones who can afford it.

We can believe that not everyone deserves “rights” and that only the select few deserve to succeed.

We can believe that the tooth fairy will put a billion dollars under our pillows tonight. It won’t happen.

It hasn’t happened in the past 30 years and it won’t happen now.

Einstein said insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Taxes for the extremely wealthy are lower than they’ve been in years. Since 2003 when taxes on the top income group dropped to current levels, we’ve seen more and more industries moving overseas, far fewer jobs, huge bank failures, Wall Street scandals, and stagnant median wages for all but the ultra-rich (theirs are 976 times more than the bottom 90% of us).

If we still believe in the American Dream we need to vote for those who will protect it for all of us!

WE'RE NUMBER ONE!

We’re Number One! We’re Number One! Keep shouting it and it may come true. We were—once.

Look at the facts. In a recent study, life expectancy in most U.S. counties is well behind the world’s healthiest nations (in some cases 50 years less).

Oklahoma ranks at the top of a truly unfortunate part of this study. Since 1997, women’s life expectancy has slipped or failed to rise in more than 850 counties, including 82% of the counties in Oklahoma!

The single most alarming problem in America, though, is that of income inequality.

We rank #4 in Income Inequality. (Chili is #1, Mexico #2, and Turkey #3.) Until the difference between what the richest and the poorest is more closely aligned, we most assuredly will not reign again in any ranking that matters.

The U.S. ranks #22 in Percentage Living Below National Poverty Line—just behind Syria and Azerbaijan.

We rank #36 in Life Expectancy, right behind Cuba!

The United States ranks #33 in Infant Mortality Rate. In this area, we’re slightly behind New Caledonia, Cyprus, Brunei, Channel Islands, Cuba, and 26 others.

In Education, we rank #14 in reading (average), #16 in math (below average), and #11 in science. South Korea ranks #1 in both reading and math and #3 in science. Finland holds the #1 spot in science.

We still rank at or near the top in several categories.

The U.S. is #1 in Military Spending. No other country, including those much larger, comes close.

We also rank #1 in Prison Population, with 2.3 million behind bars. China (four times more population) is ranked at a distant second, with only 1.6 million imprisoned.

Our rank is #1 in Prisoner per Capita. We imprison 751 per capita. Russia has 627, with England, Germany, and Japan next, at 151, 88, and 63 per capita, respectively.

We rank #1 in Guns Per 100 Persons (88.8), with Yemen #2 (54.8).

Fortunately, we’re only #8 in Gun-Related Deaths Per Capita. The top seven are South Africa, Colombia, Thailand, Guatemala, Brazil, Estonia, and Mexico.

We could claim American Supremacy again, with lots of work.

TAXED TOO MUCH?

Before you believe that the richest Americans are taxed too much, look at the facts. In 2008, the IRS reports that the average income tax rate on the 400 richest Americans was just 18.11 percent—less than the percentage (25%) paid by an individual making $32,550 annually. (The sixteen “poorest” of the 400 richest are worth $1 Billion each. The rest are worth more than $1 Billion—much more.)

One hundred of the ultra-rich (1/4 of them) paid between 10 and 15 percent in 2008, which is the rate for those making less than $32,550 (about average teacher pay in Oklahoma.) One hundred twelve (28%) paid between 15 and 20 percent in income taxes in 2008.

Thirty of the richest Americans paid an average rate of less than 10%--which is the same percentage as individuals making $8,025 or less annually. To put this in perspective, someone making $1 Million earns more ($8,052.88) in two days and 45 minutes than someone making $8,025 in a full year.

It’s not “un-American” to talk about raising income taxes on the extremely wealthy. Thomas Jefferson said it best in 1784: “Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual.”

Our country needs revenue to bring down our national debt. That’s not to say that spending can’t be cut, but that’s only part of the solution.

Income tax rates are the lowest they’ve been in sixty years, by any measure used.

It’s difficult to understand why anyone would think that lowering taxes on the extremely wealthy would help anyone except the extremely wealthy. America’s most prosperous years were ones during which the top marginal income tax rate was at its highest levels—55 years (from 1932 to 1986) when those rates ranged from 63% to 94%.

During those years, we built schools, universities, libraries, roads, bridges, a strong military, an excellent international reputation, and “safety nets” for our most vulnerable. We made commitments to the future for our children and grandchildren. We developed the American Dream.

Don’t let anyone fool you into believing that raising revenue isn’t a reasonable option.

A JOBS PLAN FOR JOB CREATORS?

As long as we allow politicians to slash public sector jobs, pay companies to move abroad, deny people’s rights to bargain for “frills” (like having enough firefighters or police to adequately protect us), dramatically reduce unemployment insurance, and defund programs that will cause more people to lose jobs, unemployment will continue to be high and potentially go higher. Remember, Boehner stating, “So be it” when discussing the loss of jobs?

Last year alone, 40% of total job losses were from public schools.

The GOP plans to campaign on the poor employment numbers, so we need to understand why the job losses occurred.

If they are so concerned about jobs, why would they continue to eliminate them? Perhaps we should look more closely at the “House Republican Plan for America’s Job Creators.” You don’t have to go much further than their title. Read it again. Job Creators? Many of us were under the impression that the jobs problem stemmed from the number of workers without jobs!

Their subtitle is “Empowering Families, Small Businesses and Entrepreneurs.” (See if you can find anything in the plan to empower families. I couldn’t.)

Their plan addresses providing fewer regulations for companies. It proposes lowering income tax rates for the extremely wealthy and for corporations—to lower rates than families making $69,000 annually now pay. They want trade deals with other countries expanded (something Democrats supported if the dislocated workers in America were given opportunities to gain additional skills for new jobs).

They support changing patents so that the “first to file” has precedence over the “first to invent.” Although they want to deport immigrants, as a general rule, they are willing to grant exceptions to highly skilled, hand-selected individuals. One part of their recently released plan includes reauthorizing user fees for prescription drugs and medical devices—something already passed by the Senate and House Judiciary Committee. And, of course, they want to expand energy exploration and production.

Finally, they propose paying down debt and reducing government spending, eliminating even more jobs. That’s it. Their plan consists of eight ideas. Where are workers in this plan?

A REASONABLE OPTION

Before you believe that the richest Americans are taxed too much, look at the facts. In 2008, the IRS reports that the average income tax rate on the 400 richest Americans was just 18.11 percent—less than the percentage (25%) paid by an individual making $32,550 annually. (The sixteen “poorest” of the 400 richest are worth $1 Billion each. The rest are worth more than $1 Billion—much more.)

One hundred of the ultra-rich (1/4 of them) paid between 10 and 15 percent in 2008, which is the rate for those making less than $32,550 (about average teacher pay in Oklahoma.) One hundred twelve (28%) paid between 15 and 20 percent in income taxes in 2008.

Thirty of the richest Americans paid an average rate of less than 10%--which is the same percentage as individuals making $8,025 or less annually. To put this in perspective, someone making $1 Million earns more ($8,052.88) in two days and 45 minutes than someone making $8,025 in a full year.

It’s not “un-American” to talk about raising income taxes on the extremely wealthy. Thomas Jefferson said it best in 1784: “Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual.”

Our country needs revenue to bring down our national debt. That’s not to say that spending can’t be cut, but that’s only part of the solution.

Income tax rates are the lowest they’ve been in sixty years, by any measure used.

It’s difficult to understand why anyone would think that lowering taxes on the extremely wealthy would help anyone except the extremely wealthy. America’s most prosperous years were ones during which the top marginal income tax rate was at its highest levels—55 years (from 1932 to 1986) when those rates ranged from 63% to 94%.

During those years, we built schools, universities, libraries, roads, bridges, a strong military, an excellent international reputation, and “safety nets” for our most vulnerable. We made commitments to the future for our children and grandchildren. We developed the American Dream.

Don’t let anyone fool you into believing that raising revenue isn’t a reasonable option.

GOP "Jobs" Plan

They’re honest about one thing. The House Republican Plan for America’s Job Creators is exactly that—a plan that helps job creators. The plan mentions families only in passing, stating that helping businesses and the richest Americans will not raise taxes on families.

The problem is their approach has been tried and didn’t work. Stagnation for the poor and middle class, while stuffing the coffers of the extremely wealthy, is not acceptable. The nastiest part is that it’s far worse this time because they’re robbing the poor to help the rich get richer.

Republican-led programs, such as two unfunded wars and an unfunded prescription drug plan, were key factors to creating the current debt. Place blame where blame belongs.

A roller coaster cannot stop on a dime. It can only stop with safe, properly working brakes and an intricate, well-oiled mechanism that will drive it upward again. Sudden braking without regard to the consequences or a plan to begin the forward motion can result in crashes.

Their plan?

Limit regulations-- Corporations shouldn’t have to abide by pesky regulations that keep us safe.

Lower taxes for the rich and corporations-- Tax rates for the rich and corporations should be lower than what families making $69,000 annually pay now.

Expand trade deals--Democrats supported this, if dislocated workers whose companies moved overseas were provided with training assistance.

Fix patent backlog-- This plan includes drastically changing from a “first-to-invent” system to a “first-to-file” system, putting small businesses, entrepreneurs and inventors who would be at a disadvantage.

Ignore VISA requirements for highly qualified individuals—The “send all immigrants packing” party would grant exceptions for highly skilled.

Reauthorize user fees for prescription drugs & medical devices—The Senate and House Judiciary Committee have already passed this.

Expand energy exploration and production—“Drill, baby, drill!”

Pay down debt and reduce government spending—Reduce government (except for what the GOP wants to control—such as abortion, education, public broadcasting, women’s health, rapes, food and medical help for infants and children, gay rights, etc.)

Exactly how many JOBS will be gained by this “plan?”

AVERAGE AMERICANS CANNOT SURVIVE!

Meet two families—the MidAmericas and the WellOffs. Both have two children. The MidAmericas earn $39,000 annually (average where I live). The WellOffs earn $1,000,000 per year.

HOUSING
The MidAmericas pay $700 monthly for housing. After adding utilities, insurance, phone and repairs/improvements, their housing costs are $13,100 annually. That is 33.59% of their total income.

The WellOffs pay $2500 monthly for housing. After adding the same items, their annual housing costs are $85,000 annually—8.5% of income.

TRANSPORTATION
Transportation costs for the MidAmericas are $6,600 (16.92% of income), while the WellOffs pay $57,000 (5.7% of income).

Those two categories are necessities!

The MidAmericas have already spent 50.51% of their annual income.
The WellOffs have only spent 14.2% of theirs.

MEDICAL
Medical costs for the MidAmericas are $6,600 (16.92%), while the WellOffs can afford to pay $33,600 (3.36%).

FOOD
The MidAmericas budget $4056 for food for four (10.4%) and the WellOffs allocate $73,000 (7.3%).

CLOTHING
Clothing for the MidAmericas totals $600 (1.54%), while the WellOffs allot $12,000 (1.2%).

SOCIAL SECURITY
The MidAmericas pay the maximum percentage (4.2%) for Social Security, but the WellOffs only pay 0.66% of their income into Social Security, since only income up to $106,800 is taxed.

MEDICARE
Both families pay the same percentage (1.45%) into Medicare.

INCOME TAX
The actual rate for the MidAmericas is 12.85% and the WellOffs pay 32.03% (first $16,500 is taxed at 10% for both, with gradually increasing rates for higher levels).


EXPENDABLE CASH is the only remaining category. Sit down.

The MidAmericas have exactly $50.70 left—for everything else.

The WellOffs have $398,000.00 left for their non-necessities.

Families making $1,000,000 annually have to pay more for income taxes, and choose to pay more for everything else.

Even with extremely high estimates for necessities in our example, they have 39.8% of their income that they can save, invest, and spend on non-necessities.

When an average American family has to spend over 99% of their annual income on necessities alone, something is drastically wrong. There’s none left for savings, retirement, or even college.

This is a travesty of gargantuan proportion.

DEAR PAUL RYAN,

In a speech to the Hudson Institute, you stated, “Rather than depending on government for your retirement and health security, I propose to empower people to become much more self-dependent for such things in life."

That would be nice. I hope you never have to depend on the government. I forgot—you already did. You went to college on your deceased father’s Social Security benefits. I’m not chastising you for that. I’m glad you had that choice. So did I, when my mother died. The difference is that I would not insist that others not have it available for their own personal tragedies. Why should you and I benefit from safety nets, but deny it for our children and grandchildren?

You once said we must “ensure that America’s safety net does not become a hammock that lulls able-bodied citizens into lives of complacency and dependency.” We must both be exceptions to that rule. As are multitudes of people who needed help at times. I’ve worked with them—low income students, their parents, dislocated workers, and Katrina evacuees. Precious few were content to wallow in their circumstances.

I pity those of you who are so cynical that you think lethargy is a goal for most. No one is perfect and there are some who would be lazy at the expense of others. But, those are few and far in between in my experiences working with thousands during the past thirty plus years!

Most people who have devoted their lives to working absolutely hate applying for and accepting unemployment insurance. They’re embarrassed and hearing themselves demonized by politicians who haven’t walked in their shoes is demoralizing and just plain heartless!

The wealthiest Americans have done extremely well over the past thirty years. The rest of us—not so much. Your proposals reward them and penalize the rest of us. The Stock Market may work well for some of you, but what little we can afford to contribute will never allow us to be self-dependent. Some of us tried that and lost almost all our retirement savings once. Not again!

WHAT DO OUR TAXES BUY?

My taxes buy me peace of mind. I can generally drive safely without worrying about roads or bridges. I know if my home catches fire, there’s a crew of men and women standing by, ready to help. I know if there’s a medical emergency that trained professionals will help within a matter of minutes.

I feel comfortable knowing the children in my community are getting an education that will prepare them for the future. I am thankful that the water coming through my faucets is safe, the food I buy has been scrutinized, and that the prescriptions we get will help, rather than harm, us.

I’m glad that the drivers I meet on the roads are required to buy insurance, just as I am. I’m grateful that required seatbelts and airbags have saved lives and pleased when regulators ensure that I’m protected as a consumer whose lone voice is seldom heard.

I love it when government assists when disasters occur. I’m blessed that my 94 year old father is in fairly good health and was able to retire with a bit of dignity. I’m thankful the air we breathe is not as polluted as it might be without regulations and safeguards.

I was able to attend college after my mother died unexpectedly when I was just eighteen, thanks to her Social Security benefits. When I lost a job, I was grateful that the Unemployment Insurance I’d paid into was available to help pay bills through a lengthy jobless period.

The America I believe in has a history of helping when times are difficult. Those safety nets never once encouraged me to lie in a hammock and bask in complacency or dependency. In fact, they made me try harder to get back to the point where I, too, could contribute to this society.

In my experiences—mostly working with low socio-economic level students and dislocated workers—I realized that most people want to succeed, want to work, and improve their lives and the lives of their families.

CLASS WARFARE? OKAY, LET'S TALK CLASS WARFARE!

What is class warfare? Class warfare is defined as conflict between social or economic classes, especially between the capitalist and proletariat classes.

There is definitely class warfare in America. But, the war was waged long ago, back in the 1980’s, when the corporate and wealthy elite waged class warfare against the working class and poor.

Before the “warriors” were elected, their battle cry was, “Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!.” The battle cry faded, though, as combat ensued. Suddenly, the enemy changed to the deficit. (Strange that it hadn’t been a problem when the warriors voted in two unfunded wars, and an unfunded prescription drug plan. Hmm . . .?)

The war escalated drastically recently when the budget battles began. The original target (after the original original target of job creation) was supposedly “spending” but much collateral damage was inflicted on infants, the unemployed, expectant mothers, the homeless, pre-schoolers, the poor, public servants, intelligent youth without financial means to go to college, the disabled, anyone needing health insurance, and our senior citizens.

The jet bombers loudly proclaimed that the victims of their bombings needed to share sacrifices. Then, the perpetrators were given even more money to reward them, and more shared sacrifices were requested of the victims because the additional funds given to the bombers. Those expenditures made the deficit worse, so the victims were “commanded” to sacrifice more—in the spirit of “shared sacrifice!”

No one on the ground (not the children, the poor, the disabled, or the seniors) fired the first shot. The class warfare did not begin as an attack on the wealthy or on corporations. They didn’t fight hand-to-hand, but pulled out the heavy artillery on the unarmed (those with no lobbyists or collective voices).

Class warfare is real, but it’s been waged by the representatives of the wealthy against the “least of these” for many years and there’s no end in sight.

The war wages on and it’s unknown who will win in the end. The Bible, however, tells us: “Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.”

FISCAL PUNISHMENT LEADS TO FISCAL ABUSE AND BULLYING

Any wise parent understands the difference between discipline and punishment.

Discipline is administered by adults who remain calm, cool, and collected. It literally means “to teach” and helps implement strategies to prevent future problems.

Punishment is, by definition, punitive. Fear and pain are used to achieve immediate results, which often have by-products such as rebellion and distrust. (Bullying is a form of punishment.)

When one child is repeatedly targeted by excessive punishment by a parent, especially for unknown or illogical reasons other than the parent’s anger, that child is abused.

What Republicans are doing to the budget is not fiscal discipline. It is fiscal punishment and abuse and should be recognized as such.

Republicans are using the key components of abuse in their approach to the budget deficit: acting quickly and swiftly due to unknown or illogical reasons that invoke the administrator’s anger and results in inflicting fear and intense pain for its victims.

Families in financial difficulty don’t solve those problems by eliminating their children’s right to an education. They would not disregard safety issues in their home or ignore their home’s infrastructure. Not paying for necessary medical services, with the majority being the ones helping females, wouldn’t be a viable alternative. A wise family would look at ways to increase family funding. A family member might volunteer to take a second job. One that’s hoarding cash and not contributing his/her income toward the family’s finances would be a logical place to look. They might also look at the rent they charge for their rental property that’s below market value and consider raising it.

There are ways to achieve balanced budgets. Cuts can be found that don’t penalize only programs and people the Republicans don’t like very much. And, we also cannot continually refuse to increase funding—especially for the extremely wealthy and for corporations. One-sided (cuts only) approaches simply will not work. They will punish and abuse our most vulnerable citizens.

We must start talking about fiscal discipline and call out the Republicans who want fiscal punishment and abuse.