Let me start off by saying that I am NOT against taxes. I know that they are needed to fund a government, as taxes are the SOLE source of income for a government (despite what some people may think, money does not grow in government gardens). My contention is that tax increases are NOT the answer to EVERY government spending problem.
If your friend was constantly asking for more and more money from you to buy this thing or that and never paying you back, would you continue to give that person money? No way!! At some point you would say, no more. I say, no more, to Sacramento and to Washington DC.
May 19th you will have the opportunity to vote either FOR tax increase extensions or AGAINST tax increase extensions.
PROPOSITION 1A
When the California legislature passed the budget in March, a number of changes occurred that effect every Californian financially. First, the sales tax was increased by 1%, going from 7% to 8&. Second, the income tax was increased by 0.5% in addition to the current rate (ie from 1% to 1.5%, 2% to 2.5% etc). Third, the car registration fee was increased from 0.65 to 1.0%. Fourth, the child tax credit was reduced from $309 to $99, meaning that $210 in tax credits was eliminated (reduction in taxes due). These increases are set to expire in 1 and 2 years. If proposition 1A passes they will expire in THREE and FOUR years.
In the Sample Ballot sent out by the state of California, proposition 1A states (verbatim),
“Rainy day” budget stabilization fund- Changes the budget process. Could limit future deficits and spending by increasing the size of the state “rainy day’ fund and requiring above-average revenues to be deposited into it, for use during economic downturns and other purposes. Fiscal impact: Higher state tax revenues of roughly $16 billion from 2010-11 through 2012-13. Over time, increased amount of money in state rainy day reserve and potentially less ups and downs in state spending.
Let’s pull this apart and analyze what it says and does.
1. The Fifth word is COULD, that should tell you something right off.
2. At the end of the end of the second phrase it states “and other purposes”, what does that mean? Whatever Sacramento wants it to mean and whatever they want to fund.
3. The state has already been depositing THREE PERCENT of revenue into the “rainy day” fund. However, the legislature has raided those funds repeatedly as so there is nothing left.
4. Where does that “roughly $16 billion” in higher tax revenue come from? From taxes!! From what taxes? Those four tax increases listed above.
Here is the chart straight out of the CA budget available for your reading here (I had to mdoify the chart because of the blog template format.)
1-cent Sales Tax Increase Begins on April 1, 2009, will expire on June 30, 2010. If 1A passes it will go until June 30, 2012.
5 percent Personal Income Tax Surtax 5 (2.5% Surtax If Federal Funding Triggers is pulled) begins in Tax Year 2009 and will expire in Tax Year 2010 unless 1A passes and then it will expire in Tax Year 2012.
Personal Income Tax Dependent Credit Reduction begins in Tax Year 2009 and will expire in Tax Year 2010. If 1A passes it will expire in Tax Year 2012.
Vehicle License Fee Increase from 0.65 percent to 1 percent begins on May 19, 2009 and will expire on June 30, 2011 unless 1A passes and then it will expire on June 30, 2013.
Vehicle License Fee 0.15 percent increase (again?) begins on May 19, 2009 and will expire on June 30, 2011. If 1A passes it will expire on June 30, 2013.
How do these increases impact you? Do the math-
How many kids do you have? Multiply that by $210. Multiply that by FOUR.
How many kids do you plan on having by 2013? Multiply that by $210.
How much do you pay for car registration now? Multiply that by 1.7. Multiply that by FOUR.
The increase in income tax is harder to figure in a simple equation.
Each time you make a purchase where tax is charged, increase that by one dollar per hundred spent.
I have friends with three children. That alone will increase their taxes by $630 a year for four years. That is $2520!!! Talk about an attack on families.
Side note: I don’t know about your school district, but ours is putting a parcel tax on the ballot this year as well so not only will the state charge more for having kids, but the city is going to charge more for children
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Why have the CBO if Congress doesn't heed it's warnings?
The CBO is the Congressional Budget Office. CBO assists the House and Senate Budget Committees, and the Congress more generally, by preparing reports and analyses. In accordance with the CBO's mandate to provide objective and impartial analysis, CBO's reports contain no policy recommendations. (That's direct from the CBO website cbo.gov)
While the 'stimulus' bill, now called the Reinvestment Act of 2009, was still being debated, the CBO released it's analysis that showed that the short term effect (ie next couple of years) the Act would help the economy. BUT in the long term the effects would be worse on the economy than if nothing had been done. Around the year 2016 the Reinvestment and Recovery Act would cause the GDP (gross Domestic Product) to drop. That's never a really good thing. Hum...
Now fast forward to the current debate over Cap and Trade. The idea is admirable and has worked in the past for helping to curb sulphur emmissions that lead to acid rain back in the early 90s. The current proposed use of the idea of setting a "cap" on the amount of carbon emmissions that are allowed into the enviornment. Companies can "trade" their allowances so that large emitors can buy emmission allowances from smaller emitors. Good in theory. However guess who emits carbon? YOU DO!! Everytime you drive your car, use your lawn mower, use your water heater or washer and dryer, basically anytime you use energy. Here is what the Wall Street Journal had to say.
Here is what the CBO had to say: (you can read their whole report here)
"The rise in prices would impose a larger burden, relative to income, on low-income households than on high-income households for two reasons. First, low-income housedholds spend a much lager fraction of their income than do high-income households.
In addition, energy-intensive items compose a greater share of low-income households' total expenditures. Data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistic
indicates that, measured as a share of income, spending on energy-intensive items by households in the lowest income quintile averages more than five times that by households in the highest income quintile (see Table 1).
Although the price of energy-intensive items such as electricity, natural gas, homes heating fuels, and gasoline would increase the most, the price of most items would rise in response to the imposition of a cap-and-trade program (because energy is an input for almost all goods and services). The price increases (as a percentage of income for items that were not energy-intensive would account for approximately 40 percent of the total price increases for households.
The price increases caused by a ca-and-trade program would impose additional costs on households. For example, without incorporating any benefirs to households from lessening climate chane, CBO estimates that the price increases resulting from a 15 percent cut in CO2 emissions could cost the average househols roughly $1,00 (in 2006 dollars), ranging from nearly $700 in additional cost for the average household in the lowest one-fifth (quintile) off all households arrayed by income, to about $2,200for the average household in the highest quintile.
The higher prices that woud result from a cap on CO2 emissions would reduce demand for energy and energy-intensive goods and services and thus create losses for some current investors and worskers in the sectors of the economy that supply such products. Investors might see the value of their stocks decline, and workers could face higher risk of unemployment as jobs in those secotrs were cut. Stock losses would tend to be widely dispersed amount investors because sherholders typically diversigy their porrfolios. In contrast, the costs of unemployment would probably be concentrated amount relativesly few households and, by extension, their communtities.
The magnitude of those transitional costs would depend on the pace of emission reductions, with more rapid reductions leading to larger transitional costs."
How much are you going to have to pay?
Didn't Obama say no taxes on 95% of American working families? This looks like a tax to me.
While the 'stimulus' bill, now called the Reinvestment Act of 2009, was still being debated, the CBO released it's analysis that showed that the short term effect (ie next couple of years) the Act would help the economy. BUT in the long term the effects would be worse on the economy than if nothing had been done. Around the year 2016 the Reinvestment and Recovery Act would cause the GDP (gross Domestic Product) to drop. That's never a really good thing. Hum...
Now fast forward to the current debate over Cap and Trade. The idea is admirable and has worked in the past for helping to curb sulphur emmissions that lead to acid rain back in the early 90s. The current proposed use of the idea of setting a "cap" on the amount of carbon emmissions that are allowed into the enviornment. Companies can "trade" their allowances so that large emitors can buy emmission allowances from smaller emitors. Good in theory. However guess who emits carbon? YOU DO!! Everytime you drive your car, use your lawn mower, use your water heater or washer and dryer, basically anytime you use energy. Here is what the Wall Street Journal had to say.
Here is what the CBO had to say: (you can read their whole report here)
"The rise in prices would impose a larger burden, relative to income, on low-income households than on high-income households for two reasons. First, low-income housedholds spend a much lager fraction of their income than do high-income households.
In addition, energy-intensive items compose a greater share of low-income households' total expenditures. Data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistic
indicates that, measured as a share of income, spending on energy-intensive items by households in the lowest income quintile averages more than five times that by households in the highest income quintile (see Table 1).
Although the price of energy-intensive items such as electricity, natural gas, homes heating fuels, and gasoline would increase the most, the price of most items would rise in response to the imposition of a cap-and-trade program (because energy is an input for almost all goods and services). The price increases (as a percentage of income for items that were not energy-intensive would account for approximately 40 percent of the total price increases for households.
The price increases caused by a ca-and-trade program would impose additional costs on households. For example, without incorporating any benefirs to households from lessening climate chane, CBO estimates that the price increases resulting from a 15 percent cut in CO2 emissions could cost the average househols roughly $1,00 (in 2006 dollars), ranging from nearly $700 in additional cost for the average household in the lowest one-fifth (quintile) off all households arrayed by income, to about $2,200for the average household in the highest quintile.
The higher prices that woud result from a cap on CO2 emissions would reduce demand for energy and energy-intensive goods and services and thus create losses for some current investors and worskers in the sectors of the economy that supply such products. Investors might see the value of their stocks decline, and workers could face higher risk of unemployment as jobs in those secotrs were cut. Stock losses would tend to be widely dispersed amount investors because sherholders typically diversigy their porrfolios. In contrast, the costs of unemployment would probably be concentrated amount relativesly few households and, by extension, their communtities.
The magnitude of those transitional costs would depend on the pace of emission reductions, with more rapid reductions leading to larger transitional costs."
How much are you going to have to pay?
Didn't Obama say no taxes on 95% of American working families? This looks like a tax to me.
Pay raise for Congress
Dispite the fact that hundreds of thousands of jobs are being lost every month, and dispite the millions of foreclosures and pending foreclosures, dispite the caps they themselves are imposing on the salaries of others, dispites the doom and gloom outlook that the President is exuding to the American (and international) public, Congress voted to allow the automatic annual 2.8% pay increase to remain in the $410 BILLION omnibus spending bill. They could have chosen to not take the increase. But do you think they would do that? NO WAY!!!!! Well some voted against the raise.
What does that mean? Let's do the math.
Congressional members made $169,300 as of January 1, 2008.
The automatic pay raise of 2.8% for 2009 would mean a $4740.40 increase bringing the total to $174,040.40.
Now multiply that by the number of congress members. According to Wikipedia there are 535 members of congress. So 535 x 4740.40 = $2,536,114 additional funds needed to pay congress. The total bill just for salaries is then $93,111,614.
So the $2.5 million doesn't seem that big when comparing that to the $410 BILLION of the spending bill but that is the mentality that gets us to the point where we are in debt so badly. A million here, a couple million there ADD UP.
Do you get a 2.8% AUTOMATIC payraise this year? Would your company just fork over the money if all your coworkers voted to raise their own pay? Didn't think so. The real world doesn't work like that.
Oh yeah, and how much does the average American make? In 2007, the median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau. So your congress members alone make more than 3 times the national HOUSEHOLD average.
What does that mean? Let's do the math.
Congressional members made $169,300 as of January 1, 2008.
The automatic pay raise of 2.8% for 2009 would mean a $4740.40 increase bringing the total to $174,040.40.
Now multiply that by the number of congress members. According to Wikipedia there are 535 members of congress. So 535 x 4740.40 = $2,536,114 additional funds needed to pay congress. The total bill just for salaries is then $93,111,614.
So the $2.5 million doesn't seem that big when comparing that to the $410 BILLION of the spending bill but that is the mentality that gets us to the point where we are in debt so badly. A million here, a couple million there ADD UP.
Do you get a 2.8% AUTOMATIC payraise this year? Would your company just fork over the money if all your coworkers voted to raise their own pay? Didn't think so. The real world doesn't work like that.
Oh yeah, and how much does the average American make? In 2007, the median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau. So your congress members alone make more than 3 times the national HOUSEHOLD average.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
New York City
So going along with the theme from the last post, there is a statistic being circulated that I think would make most people's jaw drop. In New York City, where between 8 and 9 MILLION people live, over half of the city income tax is paid by guess who many people?
4 million people? not even close
3 million people? nope
2 million people? still wrong
1 million people? too many zeros
500,000 people? still too many zeros
50,000 people? almost there
41,290 people pay one HALF of the taxes collected in a city of over 8 MILLION people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If that is not sckewed than what is? Now imagine you are one of those almost 42,000 people how would you feel. They pay NY city income tax, NassauSoffolk County income tax, NY state income tax, and the Federal income tax. And the people that benefit from the money THEY EARNED are being told to hate those rich selfish people and they ARE!!!
If you owned a business and you had a couple of loyal customers who accounted for about half of your sales and income, how would you treat them? Would you wine 'em and dine 'em (or root beer 'em and in-n-out 'em) or would you turn your other customers against them and get those customers demanding that those few customers pay the bills for ALL the customers?
Come on people!! We can't keep demanding more from those who make more than others. Who else can afford to continue to spend money during these tough times? By them going to the mall and buying new clothes and buying new cars and boats and going on vacations they are STIMULATING the economy and helping to keep people employed. Imagine if they stopped spending money, how many more businesses would go under? Now think about that. The more we tax them and take the money THEY EARNED from them the more that is taken out of economy. Remember what happened with the luxury tax? A number of years ago a tax was put on new luxury items, ie cars over a certain amount and boats and furs etc, well the people with money stopped buying new items and started to buy used items. Why? No luxary tax. You may say, so what, they still got a $100,000 yacht. They did, but what happened to the people who were in the boat making industry that was then not selling new boats? They lost their jobs. And the luxury car industry? Same story. Fine jewelery? Same story.
You may say that was then and this is now. Well modern example oof what happens when the government interfers with how those with a little money spend it. You know I'm sure that congress has imposed strict "guidelines" on how big businesses spend their money. No more incentive trips and no more retreats etc. You may say good, they shouldn't be spending their money on that. Think about where that money was going to go and how it would have been used.
Company says "Sell lots and we'll send you to Vegas"
Employees sell more products and earn trip
Company sends them to vegas
money is spent on airfare, hotel, food, transportation
airlines, hotels, restaurants, rent-a-car places receive money
they pay their employees
So think about it when a majority of those trips stop
the money stops flowing in and the businesses lose that income and don't make as
much and can't afford to keep their employees and, oh no, lay off people.
IT'S HAPPENING!! Vegas has come out and said that it's losing MILLIONS of dollars because of the lack of corporate trips. Less money = less jobs.
Why don't people follow the money trail and see that it may start in some fat cat's pocket book but it ends up helping to put the food on their table.
4 million people? not even close
3 million people? nope
2 million people? still wrong
1 million people? too many zeros
500,000 people? still too many zeros
50,000 people? almost there
41,290 people pay one HALF of the taxes collected in a city of over 8 MILLION people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If that is not sckewed than what is? Now imagine you are one of those almost 42,000 people how would you feel. They pay NY city income tax, NassauSoffolk County income tax, NY state income tax, and the Federal income tax. And the people that benefit from the money THEY EARNED are being told to hate those rich selfish people and they ARE!!!
If you owned a business and you had a couple of loyal customers who accounted for about half of your sales and income, how would you treat them? Would you wine 'em and dine 'em (or root beer 'em and in-n-out 'em) or would you turn your other customers against them and get those customers demanding that those few customers pay the bills for ALL the customers?
Come on people!! We can't keep demanding more from those who make more than others. Who else can afford to continue to spend money during these tough times? By them going to the mall and buying new clothes and buying new cars and boats and going on vacations they are STIMULATING the economy and helping to keep people employed. Imagine if they stopped spending money, how many more businesses would go under? Now think about that. The more we tax them and take the money THEY EARNED from them the more that is taken out of economy. Remember what happened with the luxury tax? A number of years ago a tax was put on new luxury items, ie cars over a certain amount and boats and furs etc, well the people with money stopped buying new items and started to buy used items. Why? No luxary tax. You may say, so what, they still got a $100,000 yacht. They did, but what happened to the people who were in the boat making industry that was then not selling new boats? They lost their jobs. And the luxury car industry? Same story. Fine jewelery? Same story.
You may say that was then and this is now. Well modern example oof what happens when the government interfers with how those with a little money spend it. You know I'm sure that congress has imposed strict "guidelines" on how big businesses spend their money. No more incentive trips and no more retreats etc. You may say good, they shouldn't be spending their money on that. Think about where that money was going to go and how it would have been used.
Company says "Sell lots and we'll send you to Vegas"
Employees sell more products and earn trip
Company sends them to vegas
money is spent on airfare, hotel, food, transportation
airlines, hotels, restaurants, rent-a-car places receive money
they pay their employees
So think about it when a majority of those trips stop
the money stops flowing in and the businesses lose that income and don't make as
much and can't afford to keep their employees and, oh no, lay off people.
IT'S HAPPENING!! Vegas has come out and said that it's losing MILLIONS of dollars because of the lack of corporate trips. Less money = less jobs.
Why don't people follow the money trail and see that it may start in some fat cat's pocket book but it ends up helping to put the food on their table.
Sticking it to the rich
There are many politicans claiming that the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes. The same politicians then say that the government needs to step in and make the rich pay more.
I have a question about the idea of the rich not paying their fair share of taxes? What is it based on? I wondered for quite awhile, how true is this? Is there any information that shows the amount of taxes paid by the "rich" versus the amount of taxes paid by the "poor"?
I found information that refutes the claim being made by many politicians today. If you look at the bottom portion of the image, the chart compares the percent of total income earned in the country by various groups to the percent of the total federal taxes paid by those same groups. Let's look closely.
1. The top 0.1% make 9.1% of all the income in the country but pay 17.4% of all the federal taxes paid in the country.2. The top 1% make 19% of all income but pay 36.9% of all federal taxes.
3. The top 5% make 33.4% of all income but pay 57.1% of all federal taxes.
4. The bottom 50% make 13.4% of all income but pay only 3.3% of all federal taxes.
5. The wealthiest 5% pay almost 60% of the taxes. While the poorest 50% pay less then 5%. How does that equal the rich don't pay their share of the taxes?? You tell me.
Look at the source... The Department of the Treasury, based on IRS data from the 2004 tax year. Not a political party or someone trying to win an election.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Crazy California Controller
So I work at a tax office. You want to know what I learned today? California taxpayers who submit their taxes after tomorrow will have their return processed and their refund, if any, sent out BEFORE those who sent in and had their returns accepted prior to today. Yup. So if you have already submitted your return and haven't gotten your refund yet you will probably have to wait till those that come in from now on get processed and those refunds are sent out!!
HOW LUDICROUS!!!
The explanation is that there is a back log of returns and so the state will hold those they already have and start processing those yet to come. Hello Controller. That is NUTS.
The solution? The FAIR solution? If there is a back log you pick a date and say everything that you receiver AFTER this date you will hold, in order, and process them AFTER you finish what we have NOW. Then you repeat that procedure if you find ourselves backlogged again.
Who voted for the controller? Oh get this. After declaring that the state would send out IOUs for jury service and tax refunds and saying how the state is in a financial mess he went out and spent over $900,000 on new office furniture. Yup. Real financially responsible this man is, and he's in charge of our money.
I didn't vote for him.
HOW LUDICROUS!!!
The explanation is that there is a back log of returns and so the state will hold those they already have and start processing those yet to come. Hello Controller. That is NUTS.
The solution? The FAIR solution? If there is a back log you pick a date and say everything that you receiver AFTER this date you will hold, in order, and process them AFTER you finish what we have NOW. Then you repeat that procedure if you find ourselves backlogged again.
Who voted for the controller? Oh get this. After declaring that the state would send out IOUs for jury service and tax refunds and saying how the state is in a financial mess he went out and spent over $900,000 on new office furniture. Yup. Real financially responsible this man is, and he's in charge of our money.
I didn't vote for him.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Quotes
One of the best quotes I've read in a long time
Alexander F. Tyler stated: ' A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the treasury with the result that democracies always collapse over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship.' Sound like what's going on today? Oh yeah.
Here is a link to a great essay on the differences between a democracy (which the US is NOT) and a republic (which the US is).
Alexander F. Tyler stated: ' A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the treasury with the result that democracies always collapse over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship.' Sound like what's going on today? Oh yeah.
Here is a link to a great essay on the differences between a democracy (which the US is NOT) and a republic (which the US is).
I didn't do it
It passed. Did you know that the House voted unanimously prior to agreeing on the stimulus bill to post it for 48 hours before they would vote on it so that people could read it? They did, and then didn't. They didn't post it because they didn't want people to read it and say hey, I didn't know that was in there and I DON'T WANT IT. Did you know that during his campaigning Obama said that he would post on the White House website any piece of legislature or FIVE days prior to signing it? He did and then didn't. Nope, again he didn't want people to read it. The White House's response to inquires about that was that the system to do so is not in place or ready. Let me just say what I think. BS!! I know how easy it is to create a blog, it may not be pretty but in 20 minutes a person can be broadcasting to the world. So White House people, flimsy excuse, it just shows how inexperienced you are and how NOT transparent this administration is going to be.
Did you know that Vladimir Putin of Russia, at a financial summit in Switzerland in early February, warned President Obama about the problems of Socialism? I thought that was kind of interesting. Here is a man who is trying to rebuild his country after it was cremated by a system that has NEVER proven workable or desirable, warning our President about moving in that direction. Who'd have ever thought that would happen? That Russian leaders would warn American leaders about the problems of being socialist? Kind of ironic huh? Do you think it worked? We'll see.
One month in office and all we have to show for it is a lot of nothing good.
Did you know that Vladimir Putin of Russia, at a financial summit in Switzerland in early February, warned President Obama about the problems of Socialism? I thought that was kind of interesting. Here is a man who is trying to rebuild his country after it was cremated by a system that has NEVER proven workable or desirable, warning our President about moving in that direction. Who'd have ever thought that would happen? That Russian leaders would warn American leaders about the problems of being socialist? Kind of ironic huh? Do you think it worked? We'll see.
One month in office and all we have to show for it is a lot of nothing good.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
For your reading enjoyment
Here is the link to the bills being hashed over in the Senate and House.
You know what makes me laugh? I can't wait to hear the pickering between Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reed as their respective houses tyr to come to agreements on what should be included and what shouldn't be included. I can see that discussion getting very heating as each thinks that his or her bill is what is needed and every little item is essential to the survival of this country.
Funny thing though. The Congressional Budget Office has come out and said that yes, in the next couple of years these bills may help the economy BUT in the next 5-10+ years the economy would be BETTER off if we did NOTHING!!! Why? Becuase for eery dollar of additional debt we accrue there is a loss of private investment dollars. What drives the economy? Is it the government? Is it the private sector, aka YOU and ME? Ask the economist. It's US, not the government. All this money they are throwing at the problem is going to put us is worse shape. Why not just use those dollars, which we don't have and which the public needs more to boot, and burn them, at least then the midwest and east can have some heat to warm them from all the cold weather. What do you think? I think they might enjoy the warmth.
I am flabbergasted that there is such a lack of concern and foresight about our money and the debt our children will have to pay.
You know what makes me laugh? I can't wait to hear the pickering between Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reed as their respective houses tyr to come to agreements on what should be included and what shouldn't be included. I can see that discussion getting very heating as each thinks that his or her bill is what is needed and every little item is essential to the survival of this country.
Funny thing though. The Congressional Budget Office has come out and said that yes, in the next couple of years these bills may help the economy BUT in the next 5-10+ years the economy would be BETTER off if we did NOTHING!!! Why? Becuase for eery dollar of additional debt we accrue there is a loss of private investment dollars. What drives the economy? Is it the government? Is it the private sector, aka YOU and ME? Ask the economist. It's US, not the government. All this money they are throwing at the problem is going to put us is worse shape. Why not just use those dollars, which we don't have and which the public needs more to boot, and burn them, at least then the midwest and east can have some heat to warm them from all the cold weather. What do you think? I think they might enjoy the warmth.
I am flabbergasted that there is such a lack of concern and foresight about our money and the debt our children will have to pay.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
How much??
Right now the congress is debating on how to spend close to $1 trillion. Do you know how much that is? $1,000,000,000,000.00. Twelve 0s. There are almost 300 million people in this country, divide that trillion by 300 million and you get a bill of $3333.33 per man, woman, and child. That means that my house is on the hook for $10,000. How about your family? But guess what we didn't account for? Interest. The interest is estimated to bring the total up to $1,300,000,000,000. Now what are you on the hook for? $4333.33. My family is responsible for $13,000. How about yours?
What are we going to gain from that $4333.33? Not much.
Wouldn't it be nice if they would take a little time to consider how this will impact our economy in the long run as opposed to just push push push this bill through? Maybe they could explain why there is over 200 pages on the creation of a national health care bureaucracy? Pages 434-653 inclusive. The whole bill is "only" 680 pages so those 219 pages make up 32% of the bill.Last time I checked there is little coming from Washington to explain all of that except to say that your health records will be digitized. I tried to read those pages and pages of bureaucracy lingo, and all I gained from it is, besides a headache, THIS BILL IS NOT ABOUT CHANGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM!!!!!! I don't want the government involved in my health care decisions. I want to be able to have the final say over what I will or won't do, not the Coordinator of Health Information Technology or the Secretary of Human Health Services. Do you?
What are we going to gain from that $4333.33? Not much.
Wouldn't it be nice if they would take a little time to consider how this will impact our economy in the long run as opposed to just push push push this bill through? Maybe they could explain why there is over 200 pages on the creation of a national health care bureaucracy? Pages 434-653 inclusive. The whole bill is "only" 680 pages so those 219 pages make up 32% of the bill.Last time I checked there is little coming from Washington to explain all of that except to say that your health records will be digitized. I tried to read those pages and pages of bureaucracy lingo, and all I gained from it is, besides a headache, THIS BILL IS NOT ABOUT CHANGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM!!!!!! I don't want the government involved in my health care decisions. I want to be able to have the final say over what I will or won't do, not the Coordinator of Health Information Technology or the Secretary of Human Health Services. Do you?
Where I sit
Let me just say it, I am a republican. Why? Because I find that the most important of choices and values to me, are held more closely by the Republicans than by the Democrats, such as abortion and traditional family values. Those values I believe have eternal consequences. While I do agree more so with Republicans about capitalism and the free market than the Democrats, I think that these are lesser reasons to align with one group over the other as they ultimately are much more temporal and transient than eternal. There are ideas and positions that I support held by both groups.
I think that for the most part both sides of the political spectrum desire the same ends, happiness and prosperity for all. It is in the means of achieving this end wherein I see the differences mount. There is merit on both sides.
I think that for the most part both sides of the political spectrum desire the same ends, happiness and prosperity for all. It is in the means of achieving this end wherein I see the differences mount. There is merit on both sides.
Why another blog?
Last year while I was working in a tax office I became really frustrated with the seemingly lack of honesty in the media to present facts that were inconsistent or unfavorable to the sources agenda, so I created a blog. I voiced my findings and opinions knowing that no one would probably ever read it but feeling like at least I did something. That blog sat unread or updated until Joe and I decided to use it for updates about our family. In reading blogs by our friends we have seen that there are some who use the forum to voice ideas and opinions about all that is happening politically while there were others who wanted to steer clear of politics. So in an effort to allow both groups to continue with their choice, I support both, I have decided to create this separate blog for those who wish to read and share or politely disagree with my political findings, thoughts, insights, links, etc. Feel free to agree or disagree. All I ask is that ideas shared be done so in a considerate manner. I will state my thoughts honestly, please do not be offended if they differ from yours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)