So, I have no issue with reading the Constitution on the first day of the new Congress. Might be a good idea to do every time to make sure that all of our Members of Congress have heard it at least once. There's a really good article in there about Congress Declaring War. Anyway, I digress.
So the most important thing that had to get done was the Repeal of the "Job Killing Health Care Bill?" The most important thing? In the whole country? And for what? The Senate probably won't even bring it. If they do, it likely won't pass. If it does it will get vetoed. Why not focus on the specific things that they have concerns with, that they might actually be able to get approved? It doesn't make good TV or newpaper copy. I am convinced that the leaders of the Republican Party are just angling for something else. If they were really serious about making a difference I think there would be some more reasonable approaches to problem solving.
For example, one of the AHCA provisions calls for companies to create 1099's for anyone who they pay $600 to during a year. So, that has one purpose - it helps the IRS collect more taxes. Those taxes help to pay for the health care insurance costs. Now, if I earn $600, I owe taxes. If no one reports that I earned $600 there is no way to identify me. Sort of the same issue with cash tips that often go unreported, or the guy who paints your house and gives you a discount for cash. Not a new tax, but better enforcement of existing law. Now, I agree that filling out 1099's is an additional burden on companies. However, I have to think that there might be a way where the creation of a check to a vendor can be made to create a record somewhere so that at the end of the year that 1099 can be generated by some automated tool. I know that I go on line and create W2's each year on the SSA site. It doesn't take too long and I'm sure that someone somewhere is going to develop an application for 1099's. I don't know how much tax revenue that is going to generate, but it seems to me that it is worth looking into.
Anyway, that's just one example. Instead of repealing a law that hasn't even come fully into effect yet (and by doing so, undoing all the parts that have) leave it alone and work on things that are more important. Things that both parties can agree on. Let's see:
1. End the people killing wars in the Middle East. They are costing us a fortune, are never ending and given that we have not declared war on anyone, they seem on the face to be illegal. Honestly, how do you wage war on a disorganized group of anarchists? They are criminals, should be treated like criminals and that's that. Giving them the status of a worthy advasary of the United States and the free world just gives them standing they dont deserve.
2. Fix the economy. I heard an interesting commentary the other day. It goes something like this. If I am a company president who has had to lay off 1000 people in 2008, I have probably figured out how to run the company without those people by 2011. So I am not hiring anyone until my company grows a lot. And that won't happen until people start buying my stuff. And that won't happen without jobs that pay well. Kind of an endless circle. So, figure out what it takes to bring some new jobs to our country. Tax policy comes to mind. That doesn't necessarily mean lowering tax rates. Lowering tax rates means that companies and people get to keep more of their money but it doesn't create a job. But if we had tax policy that said if you add 100 jobs your tax rate goes down, well maybe that would. Or, how about a tax holiday for a company that starts a new division that is making batteries that power cars? Wny not start letting us build nuclear power stations again? Construction jobs, maintenance jobs, operator jobs and it saves oil. If demand for oil goes down then the price of gas might go down. If that happens people have more money. Maybe they will buy something?
3. Use stimulus money the right way. As much as we hate it, we need public works programs. We need the internet to be expanded everywhere. We need bridges rebuilt. We need road expanded. All of these things need people to do them. No stimulus money should be given to any project that doesn't create jobs and if it takes $1,000,000 to create one job, that is the wrong project.
Anyway, there are people smarter than may who should be able to figure this stuff out. Every law that this new Congress passes (or even considers) in addition to the Constitutional Citation should also have a Job's Creation Citation that spells out how this law will create some number of jobs.
Well, that's what I think of the new Congress.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Monday, May 3, 2010
C: Center Right or Center Left?
I had an interesting conversation with a friend the other day. He is very Republican and he thinks I am very Democrat. But we talked about what we agree on which was important because we had been talking, well not really talking, about we didn't agree on.
Here's what we agree on - the deficit is too big. People should have health insurance. (We did not agree on whether it should be mandatory!) Unemployment is too high. We don't like taxes. Financial services should have some regulation.
He says the country should be center-right. I think the country should be center-right. We never defined center-right. Here's what it means to me. I won't try to say what it means to him - I really don't know. It might be the same.
What it means to me is that those people on either extreme are probably wrong about almost everything. On the left its people who think more government is the answer to everything. Center-left is that some govenment is really necessary. They don't think the government has the answer to everything but they do think that government is required for a lot of stuff. Defense. Trade. Regulating industries that left to their own devices would destroy the country for a few extra dollars.
On the right, its the people who say that government can't do anything right and should be as small and powerless as possible. Center-right is that some government is really necessary. They don't think that the government has the answer to everything but they do think that government is required for a lot of stuff.
I think the difference is how do we pay for it. On the left there is not as much angst about a deficit. On the right there is.
For me personally, I think being in the center (or a moderate) means that we feed our hungry, we house the homeless, we protect the weak. If we are center-right we figure out how to pay for it. If we are center-left we don't make the painful choices - we do it all. Wait though - the center-right won't make painful choices either. They want low taxes, a war in the Middle East, minimal government and I don't think they want little kids to starve or be homeless. The center-left wants the rich to pay more taxes and the war in the Middle East to go away.
So I am Center-Right because I think we should balance the budget. But I also think we should have a fair tax system, feed the hungry, house the homeless and take care of the least among us. I think that we only go to war when our national survival is at stake. And only if we declare war like our Constitution requires. War is a state between two countries. This "war" in the Middle East is not a war. It's a money pit. If we weren't there we'd have a lot more money to care for the hungry and homeless and taxes would not have to be raised to do it. Or at least not as much.
My guess is that all the noise that we hear is between the 20% on the far right talking to the 20% on the far left. The 60% (probably split down the middle) in the center (whether right or left)never really get heard. We need to be. They believe that our people and our country come first. They beleive that war is not a football game where we cheer for good plays and moan when the pass is intercepted. War is politics gone awry. Homelessness is politics gone awry. Hungry children is politics gone awry.
There is not a lot of difference between center-right and center-left. There is a lot they have in common. It is time for that part of the country to take the country back. So, when you vote, think about the people you are voting for. Are they the 20% on either extreme who are keeping us apart and yelling about our differences or do they fall into the 60% in the center-right / center-left who are looking for the areas we have in common and trying to work out the small differences that define us?
Here's what we agree on - the deficit is too big. People should have health insurance. (We did not agree on whether it should be mandatory!) Unemployment is too high. We don't like taxes. Financial services should have some regulation.
He says the country should be center-right. I think the country should be center-right. We never defined center-right. Here's what it means to me. I won't try to say what it means to him - I really don't know. It might be the same.
What it means to me is that those people on either extreme are probably wrong about almost everything. On the left its people who think more government is the answer to everything. Center-left is that some govenment is really necessary. They don't think the government has the answer to everything but they do think that government is required for a lot of stuff. Defense. Trade. Regulating industries that left to their own devices would destroy the country for a few extra dollars.
On the right, its the people who say that government can't do anything right and should be as small and powerless as possible. Center-right is that some government is really necessary. They don't think that the government has the answer to everything but they do think that government is required for a lot of stuff.
I think the difference is how do we pay for it. On the left there is not as much angst about a deficit. On the right there is.
For me personally, I think being in the center (or a moderate) means that we feed our hungry, we house the homeless, we protect the weak. If we are center-right we figure out how to pay for it. If we are center-left we don't make the painful choices - we do it all. Wait though - the center-right won't make painful choices either. They want low taxes, a war in the Middle East, minimal government and I don't think they want little kids to starve or be homeless. The center-left wants the rich to pay more taxes and the war in the Middle East to go away.
So I am Center-Right because I think we should balance the budget. But I also think we should have a fair tax system, feed the hungry, house the homeless and take care of the least among us. I think that we only go to war when our national survival is at stake. And only if we declare war like our Constitution requires. War is a state between two countries. This "war" in the Middle East is not a war. It's a money pit. If we weren't there we'd have a lot more money to care for the hungry and homeless and taxes would not have to be raised to do it. Or at least not as much.
My guess is that all the noise that we hear is between the 20% on the far right talking to the 20% on the far left. The 60% (probably split down the middle) in the center (whether right or left)never really get heard. We need to be. They believe that our people and our country come first. They beleive that war is not a football game where we cheer for good plays and moan when the pass is intercepted. War is politics gone awry. Homelessness is politics gone awry. Hungry children is politics gone awry.
There is not a lot of difference between center-right and center-left. There is a lot they have in common. It is time for that part of the country to take the country back. So, when you vote, think about the people you are voting for. Are they the 20% on either extreme who are keeping us apart and yelling about our differences or do they fall into the 60% in the center-right / center-left who are looking for the areas we have in common and trying to work out the small differences that define us?
Sunday, April 25, 2010
A-Z Blog First Posting
I've decided that with all of the animosity between different groups in our country (Republicans vs. Democrats, Conservatives vs. Liberals, Tea Party vs. OFA, etc) it is time to try to find out if we are really as far apart as the noise would make it appear.
Since all of us share the common background of being Americans and probably believe in pretty similar Core Values (Democracy, Freedom, Independence) it doesn't make sense to me that we can all read or hear about something and come away with such different interpretations. I thik some of it is caused by marketing from one side or the other and some of it is caused by us not collectively taking the time to read for ourselves what is going on and then making a decision about how we feel about it.
I'll give you the most current example. It will be the subject of a series of blogs later. Health Care Reform. Now, I have friends, people I like, who I get along with, who have similar backgrounds to me but who have a view of HCR that is 180 degrees from mine. So, I ask myself, if we are all intelligent people and we all read the same information and we all come from similar backgrounds, how do we come up with such different readings of the same bill? I think the answer is that either we all have not read it or we are all interpreting it differently. So, what I want this blog to do is to be a place where people can offer comments either based on facts, opinions or gut feelings so we can all understand each other's perspective to see if there is a common ground that we just have not found yet.
The reason I can this the A-Z Blog is because I am going to try to go through the alphabet of issues that we face to see if this process can help me understand the issues from different perspectives and maybe help someone else do the same. One thing I know - if this country cannot get past the hate and mistrust caused by being split 50-50 on virtually every issue, if we can't find a way to work together to solve these issues in a way that we can support as a majority, then our country is going to start down the slippery slope to become irrelevant to the world. If we are unable to agree on how to run our country then we surely cannot tell the world how to solve the probelms that effect us all.
Since all of us share the common background of being Americans and probably believe in pretty similar Core Values (Democracy, Freedom, Independence) it doesn't make sense to me that we can all read or hear about something and come away with such different interpretations. I thik some of it is caused by marketing from one side or the other and some of it is caused by us not collectively taking the time to read for ourselves what is going on and then making a decision about how we feel about it.
I'll give you the most current example. It will be the subject of a series of blogs later. Health Care Reform. Now, I have friends, people I like, who I get along with, who have similar backgrounds to me but who have a view of HCR that is 180 degrees from mine. So, I ask myself, if we are all intelligent people and we all read the same information and we all come from similar backgrounds, how do we come up with such different readings of the same bill? I think the answer is that either we all have not read it or we are all interpreting it differently. So, what I want this blog to do is to be a place where people can offer comments either based on facts, opinions or gut feelings so we can all understand each other's perspective to see if there is a common ground that we just have not found yet.
The reason I can this the A-Z Blog is because I am going to try to go through the alphabet of issues that we face to see if this process can help me understand the issues from different perspectives and maybe help someone else do the same. One thing I know - if this country cannot get past the hate and mistrust caused by being split 50-50 on virtually every issue, if we can't find a way to work together to solve these issues in a way that we can support as a majority, then our country is going to start down the slippery slope to become irrelevant to the world. If we are unable to agree on how to run our country then we surely cannot tell the world how to solve the probelms that effect us all.
A: Abortion Rights
I might as well jump in with a big one! Abortion Rights has been a flashpoint in our country for so long that I cannot remeber a time when were not discussing this issue.
Here are the two extremes as far as I can tell:
1. A woman has the absolute right, without restriction, to choose what happens with her body. That includes the right to availability of safe abortion procedures on demand.
2. Life begins at conception and the act of abortion is no different than commiting a murder and should be illegal and banned.
People on both sides of this issue have lots to say on the subject. For example, some people in favor of unrestricted abortion rights beleive that any attempt to deny those rights is a ploy by men to keep women subjugated by reproduction. It means that poor women who cannot afford an abortion continue to live in poverty and it promotes child abuse of unwanted children. They may also say it is an effort by the Christian Right to impose their morality on us all.
The other side says that if you don't want the responsibility of dealing with a pregnancy, don't engage in the act that creates the responsibility. They also say that by killing an unwanted fetus we may be ending the life of a person who could be the one that cures cancer or finds the path to world peace.
Now, I'm not even talking about funding and whether or not tax dollars should be used to pay for the procedure. Just whether or not the procedure should be available. So what is the middle ground here?
Thankfully, this is not a choice that I will ever have to make. Honestly, I don't know how a woman does it. Not the actual abortion, but the thought process they must go through to even decide. I'm not sure I am satisfied that abortion is a "right" but I know that I am not satisfied with the alternatives our society offers to women.
For example, instead of telling men and women to abstain from sex, why not provide more education and access to birth control devices that might reduce the number of these unwanted pregnancies in the first place? For our children who are engaging in sex at an earlier age than ever (I was talking to a middle school teacher friend just recently and found out that over Spring break a number of the 8th grade girls decided to have sex for the first time) we need to make sure that there is more supervision by parents to not give them the opportunity to experiment with something that might impact their lives forever.
If, despite our best efforts, an unwanted pregnancy occurs, we need to, as a society, offer support to this soon to be mother so that she recieves the best pre-natel care and then help with the adoption process so that the mother knows that her baby will be taken care of if she carries it to term. If we are unwilling to do this, then as a society we cannot say with any moral standing that an abortion is not an option.
I think, and I hope that some women will respond, if as a society we provided the eduction and preventive support and if we provided the pre-natel care and adoption support, then abortion would become a much less utilized procedure. I think it should still be available to those who are unable to have a satisfactory result from the alternatives, but if by providing these capabilities we can reduce the number of abortions don't we all win?
My guess is that in the long run, this type of support will cost society less than either the continuation of abortions at current levels or the banning of abortion with the resulting increase in children who are unwanted or abused, and the mothers and families that struggle financially to deal with a decision made by others and imposed on them.
What do you think?
Here are the two extremes as far as I can tell:
1. A woman has the absolute right, without restriction, to choose what happens with her body. That includes the right to availability of safe abortion procedures on demand.
2. Life begins at conception and the act of abortion is no different than commiting a murder and should be illegal and banned.
People on both sides of this issue have lots to say on the subject. For example, some people in favor of unrestricted abortion rights beleive that any attempt to deny those rights is a ploy by men to keep women subjugated by reproduction. It means that poor women who cannot afford an abortion continue to live in poverty and it promotes child abuse of unwanted children. They may also say it is an effort by the Christian Right to impose their morality on us all.
The other side says that if you don't want the responsibility of dealing with a pregnancy, don't engage in the act that creates the responsibility. They also say that by killing an unwanted fetus we may be ending the life of a person who could be the one that cures cancer or finds the path to world peace.
Now, I'm not even talking about funding and whether or not tax dollars should be used to pay for the procedure. Just whether or not the procedure should be available. So what is the middle ground here?
Thankfully, this is not a choice that I will ever have to make. Honestly, I don't know how a woman does it. Not the actual abortion, but the thought process they must go through to even decide. I'm not sure I am satisfied that abortion is a "right" but I know that I am not satisfied with the alternatives our society offers to women.
For example, instead of telling men and women to abstain from sex, why not provide more education and access to birth control devices that might reduce the number of these unwanted pregnancies in the first place? For our children who are engaging in sex at an earlier age than ever (I was talking to a middle school teacher friend just recently and found out that over Spring break a number of the 8th grade girls decided to have sex for the first time) we need to make sure that there is more supervision by parents to not give them the opportunity to experiment with something that might impact their lives forever.
If, despite our best efforts, an unwanted pregnancy occurs, we need to, as a society, offer support to this soon to be mother so that she recieves the best pre-natel care and then help with the adoption process so that the mother knows that her baby will be taken care of if she carries it to term. If we are unwilling to do this, then as a society we cannot say with any moral standing that an abortion is not an option.
I think, and I hope that some women will respond, if as a society we provided the eduction and preventive support and if we provided the pre-natel care and adoption support, then abortion would become a much less utilized procedure. I think it should still be available to those who are unable to have a satisfactory result from the alternatives, but if by providing these capabilities we can reduce the number of abortions don't we all win?
My guess is that in the long run, this type of support will cost society less than either the continuation of abortions at current levels or the banning of abortion with the resulting increase in children who are unwanted or abused, and the mothers and families that struggle financially to deal with a decision made by others and imposed on them.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
