Posts

Posted on

HR 3 passes – raises taxes, still no jobs, thanks GOP

When the Republicans won back the House of Representatives, they did it by campaigning about JOBS JOBS JOBS, yet just as I knew they would they instead decided to start by attacking women. One way was by passing HR 3 (aka No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act) on Tuesday. This bill not only prevents federal money being spent on abortions it also goes much further and redefines what is your money and what is the government’s money.

The House of Representatives just passed H.R. 3, the controversial abortion-funding law that pro-choice critics and the White House has said will make it harder for woman to pay for abortion coverage with their own money.

The passage was expected, considering 227 members signed on as co-sponsors of the legislation. The final vote was 251-175. Sixteen Democrats and 235 Republicans voted aye. The full rollcall vote is here.

GOP-Led House Approves Abortion Coverage-Limiting Bill

Not only does the bill ban federal funds to pay for abortions, and redefines rape to remove that from reasons to use federal funds for an abortion, it also changes what is meant by “Your money”:

In order to make their “no taxpayer funding for abortion” scheme work, Republicans use H.R. 3 to disallow tax deductions for your health care expenses if your private insurance plan covers abortion. Not if you actually get an abortion. And not if a member of your family does. All it takes for you to see your taxes hiked is if the private insurance plan you selected and paid for with your own money permits coverage of abortion at all. For anyone. Even if you never get one and never plan to. If you bought a plan that agrees to cover abortion if someone else totally unrelated to you needs one, then you lose eligibility for any tax deductions for the cost of your insurance, and your tax bill shoots up. Republicans take your cash, because you agreed to buy a plan that might someday pay for someone else’s abortion.

HR 3 is GOP’s ultimate betrayal of ‘Tea Party values’

That’s right. The cheap labor conservatives will raise your taxes to make sure no one gets an abortion – even if you pay for it yourself.

As David Waldman continues:

Yes, it’s the government’s prerogative to favor or disfavor certain activities using the tax code. But of course, just last month, the Supreme Court’s conservative wing went out of its way to preserve state tax breaks for donations made to funds that underwrite religious school tuition in Arizona by holding that tax credits aren’t “government spending.” And yet now, here are Congressional “conservatives” insisting that they are. And that since money is fungible, that means every dollar you have might be in your wallet only by virtue of a tax credit. Which means the government can keep every dollar you have on a string, telling you you can’t spend it on things they don’t like, or else they’ll raise your taxes for making them mad.

AND the GOP went ape shit over something called a “Medicine cabinet tax” after the Affordable Health Care for America Act passed.

As my friends and I say IOKIYAR!

It’s OK If You’re a Republican.

Posted on

Should I feel good that Bin Laden is dead?

I am strongly opposed to the death penalty. It is a waste of time and money and isn’t justice. I strongly support the rule of law, due process, and the criminal court system. I seemed to throw all that out late Sunday evening when I learned that US Special Forces killed terrorist Osama Bin Laden.

I was concerned when the media started to ramp up coverage late Sunday evening for an unusal statement from President Obama about a publicly unknown topic. Such sudden statements either mean a military operation has occurred, there was a death of a significant figure, or a killer asteroid was about to snuff out civilization. None of those are really good news but the President surprised me. He announced that the terrorist Osama Bin Laden had been killed in a raid on a house in Pakistan by US Special Forces (reports say it was a Navy Seal team).

I fully support due process and the legal system but Bin Laden wouldn’t give up so his death is not a problem for me. He was either going to be dead in a shoot out or dead from old age in a dank dark prison and I am slightly happy about it. The man helped plan, fund, and execute terrorist activities including 9/11 that killed THOUSANDS.

But let me be clear I do NOT support an eye for an eye. I would have been just as happy if he was alive and in custody and on his way to Gitmo or wherever the government would put him.

I have never believed that the death of a criminal in response to the deaths of their victims is appropriate. I also disagree with any policy that would call for targeted killing of “bad guys”. I would like to think, short of evidence to the contrary, that President Obama authorized the capture of Bin Laden and that he forced the fire fight that in the end led to his death.

Sunday night, after the statement, the news channels showed crowds in DC and New York celebrating like their favorite team had won the World Cup. I understand the emotion but it was no better than the scenes on 9/11 of Palestinians dancing in their streets.

The death of Bin Laden wasn’t a victory or justice. It was an end to a chapter of our history. It was 10 years in the making.

I also have some friends who are a bit upset at the use of the military and the killing.

I have always been of the mind that sometimes use of the military is necessary. Using the legal system and police work should be the default but sometimes we have to deal with irrational assholes who don’t subscribe to law and order.

I thought the invasion of Afghanistan after the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden was the right thing to do and the use of Special Forces to raid Bin Laden’s compound on Sunday without telling Pakistan was also correct. There have been a lot of questions about the Pakistani response to Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and the Taliban. For years it supported Bin Laden and the Taliban as a policy to keep India, their on again off again enemy, off balance.

I also think the burial of Bin Laden within 24 hours of his death as prescribed by Islamic law was much more than he really deserved seeing how his buddies in Iraq and Somalia abused and mutilated dead Americans over the years.

With the final objective of the war in Afghanistan completed with Bin Laden’s death, I would hope we can bring our soldiers home sooner rather than later.

Posted on

Daily Show gets it wrong, Birther issue is racist

In covering the news last week that President Obama had the State of Hawaii release his “long form” birth certificate, Jon Stewart and the Daily Show took some shots at several talking heads on MSNBC saying the whole birther issue was racist. I love Jon and the show but this time his quest for equivalency led to a false conclusion.

The tag line for the video clip says it all:

Larry Wilmore claims that the birther controversy isn’t racist — it’s just an opportunity for Republicans to scare old people. (05:11)

The problem is that Stewart and Wilmore ignore the 800 lb gorilla in the room. The questions about Obama’s citizenship would have NEVER come up if he was a WHITE MAN named Steve.

If that isn’t pointing out the racism I don’t know what else would. The whole birther farce is as disgusting as the Willie Horton ad used in the 1988 elections or what Karl Rove did to John McCain in 2000 in South Carolina.

Daily Show: Wilmore – Longformers – Scared Old People

Posted on

60 Minutes carried Big Corp. water on tax rate story

The CBS News show 60 Minutes usually can be counted on for hard news about controversial subjects but a recent story about corporate income tax rates in the US showed how even a once great investigative news show can present a story so lopsided one would think it was repeating a press release.

Correspondent Lesley Stahl had a story about some large corporations who have moved their headquarters out of the country to dodge the US’s 35% tax rate on corporate income. She showed that some of the moves were a sham when she went to talk to the people in charge and they weren’t there.

Next came a short section where Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) complained about the companies that were dodging the taxes and questioned their patriotism.

Stahl then spent the remainder of the time giving big corporations an opportunity to whine and complain about the hardship of paying their fair share even though most don’t actually pay it and when they didn’t back in 2004, it didn’t help the economy.

Economist Martin Sullivan told Congress these patent and profit transfers are accounting tricks that have allowed companies to chip away at the 35 percent and save tens of billions of dollars. He says that from 2007 to 2009 these maneuvers helped lower Pfizer’s average tax rate to 17 percent; Merck to 12.5 percent, and GE to just 3.6 percent.

“It’s really remarkable, as I review the data, is the consistency with which you see this phenomenon. The taxes are going down, the profits are shifting offshore at an accelerated rate over the last few years,” Sullivan said.

So now these companies have profits accumulating overseas in places like Zug.

If they bring the money home, it’s taxed the full 35 percent. If they leave it overseas, the IRS can’t touch it. In other words, the tax law all but forces companies to keep their money out of the country, indefinitely.

“We leave the money over there. I create jobs overseas; I acquire companies overseas; I build plants overseas; and I badly want to bring that money back,” John Chambers told Stahl.

Chambers told Stahl Cisco has almost $40 billion overseas that could be brought back to the U.S.

The total amount of money U.S. companies have trapped overseas is $1.2 trillion. Chambers is advocating for a one-time tax break to allow them to bring that money home at a rate of, say five percent. That would, he says, stimulate the economy and create jobs.

“What is your downside for money that isn’t going to come back anyhow? I’d say your downside is zero,” he told Stahl.

But the Obama administration opposed this idea. When it was tried in 2005, the Treasury did rake in billions of dollars, though very few jobs were created.

A look at the world’s new corporate tax havens

John Chambers of Cisco also complains “All we’re asking is: Give us a level playing field. Get us close.”

Of course Chambers doesn’t say that Cisco and others who have operations in Europe don’t have to pay health insurance for workers – the European Union has universal health care and his fellow businessmen fought tooth and nail against the US health care reform efforts that then led to a much watered down “Affordable Healthcare Act”. Also as noted briefly we did try a one time tax reduction and it failed to generate jobs.

The story Lesley Stahl did the other night was about as bad for the middle class as the long wet kiss the entertainment division does with the show “Undercover Boss”.

Sure corporations should have a chance to lower their overall tax rate but it needs to be done with a fair intent – not as a dodge. Average Americans have been though the legal system for less.

I wouldn’t be opposed to a lower tax rate but that then must be balanced with a closing of all the loopholes. Fair is fair.

Posted on

What is the REAL nanny state?

The preamble of the US Constitution says: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” That means the government should act in the best interests of the people and in a way that betters our lives such as protecting our health, liberty, and property. Some conservatives like Senator Rand Paul complain about a “nanny state” restricting our freedom to eat as much as we want when we want, waste energy, and to be homophobic no matter that doing all that might encroach on other’s rights.

Recently Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said:

Sen. Rand Paul, in a tussle with an Energy Department official Thursday, complained about what he described as burdensome, “busybody” regulations that were forcing him to buy a bad bowl.

“Frankly, my toilets don’t work in my house. And I blame you and people like you who want to tell me what I can install in my house, what I can do. You restrict my choices,” Paul said.

The issue on the table was a 2007 law requiring a phase-in of energy efficient bulbs. Paul and others are trying to repeal portions of the law, arguing that it restricts the American consumer.

At a Thursday hearing on the issue, Paul — a freshman Republican who shares a libertarian streak with his father, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) — aimed his complaints at Kathleen Hogan, a deputy assistant at the Energy Department.

He began his remarks by asking Hogan if she was pro-choice. She replied that she was “pro-choice of bulbs.”

“The point is that most members of your administration probably would be frank and would be up front to characterize themselves as being pro-choice for abortion,” Paul said.

Toilets join light bulbs on Sen. Rand Paul’s list of necessities burdened by ‘busybody’ rules0

Setting aside the ridiculous point of comparing abortion to buying light bulbs, he isn’t the only cheap labor conservative to complain about government regulations that force you to change the behavior you are use to.

I understand Paul’s point about low flow toilets. Early models were clunky, but the current models are cutting edge and leave the old complaints behind.

I support the use of CFL or LED light bulbs over the old inefficient incandescent bulbs that haven’t really changed in over 100 years. I have several CFL bulbs and one of them I bought in 2003 and it is still working. I have not had to change a light bulb for more than 3 years now and I have seen a slight reduction in my electric bill. I plan on moving to the even better LED bulbs once the costs moderate a bit more.

What moron would want to spend money on old bulbs and give up savings on their electric bill? Sen Rand Paul I guess and other Luddites like him. Besides I would rather spend extra now for new technology and make that transition than be forced to do it later when we have to save energy either because oil is running out or some other nasty reason. I’m sure there will be someone who demands the right to pay $10 a gallon to gas up their old SUV that gets 5 miles to the gallon.

To me that is being stupid.

There is also complaints about the insurance mandate and other parts of the new health care reform law, belly aching about the First Lady’s efforts to curb child obesity, and the First Family speaking out against bullying.

They might have a point about the insurance mandate of the health care law over reaching by taxing people who don’t buy health insurance, but who would want to let insurance companies decide if life-saving procedures were cost-effective? Why do some people want to put profit over people? How is that moral?

At least if the government decided what was covered, those decisions wouldn’t be based on the bottom line. Just talk to people who spend hundred of thousands of dollars so they can have a few more weeks with their loved one. Compassionate people can’t and won’t put a price tag or profit over their loved one.

I don’t worry about rules and regulations meant to benefit the most people but I do worry, and find it ironic, that people like Senator Rand Paul thinks its okay to interfere in a woman’s health decisions while whining about the government doing that to us.

He would rather force women to have unwanted children, have the IRS police if tax dollars were used for abortions, yet doesn’t want to spend money to help take care of those children.

It seems when Democrats “overreach” they at least help the most people but when the GOP overreach they want to hurt the most people.

What is really a “nanny state”? One that tries to better the human condition or one that wants to be a selfish ass.

About Proudly powered by WordPress