Single Payer?

It used to be said that there were three professions that you didn’t go into in order to get rich. These three professions were: preacher, teacher, and doctor.

This was because supposedly the people who chose these career paths did so because they were called to them, not for the money.

In recent decades, preachers and doctors have removed themselves from that equation, with many in both professions choosing their profession for the sole purpose of getting rich. In too many cases, they haven't been interested in the well-being of their clientele, but rather in how much money they can make off of them.

If we go to the formula of everyone paying premiums to Medicare instead of Humana, Cigna, Aetna and the rest, then we will lose some of those doctors, due to the fact that they will no longer be able to make a fortune in the profession. In my opinion, those are people who shouldn't be doctors anyway, and I say "good riddance".

Considering that the insurance company lobby claims that over $100 billion a year is "minimal profits" and that the insurance industry spends over a million dollars a day on advertising, I would imagine that we could use some of those premium payments to fund the education of the many new doctors and nurses we seriously need.

Of course, medical schools will have to cease their elitist practice of limiting the number of med-school graduates that are allowed per year, but this might be a small price to pay.

I believe that, once the artificially low number of new doctors allowed and the astronomical cost of the education are removed as stumbling blocks, we will find that there are plenty of good, caring individuals who actually have the calling.

Merry Christmas to 9-11 First Responders from your Senate

Here are 3 links to segments of The Daily Show.


WARNING: If you are a staunch Republican, clicking these links will very likely destroy your illusions about your elected officials. If it doesn't, we need to talk.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-december-13-2010/lame-as-f--k-congress

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-16-2010/worst-responders

WARNING: This next one will make you cry, unless you are a Republican Senator (by which I mean: you just don't care about the first responders.)

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-16-2010/9-11-first-responders-react-to-the-senate-filibuster

And here is a list of who voted what.

http://oakminde.blogspot.com/2010/12/who-cares.html

John Cornyn is one of my Senators, and his web page, with contact info and all, is cornyn.senate.gov. I am sure that, if you follow the same formula, you can find your own

Senators' pages and either congratulate or condemn them, as you see fit.

If you think what the Republicans did was right, very likely silence on your part will convey to them your feelings. If, however, you feel that they were in the wrong,

then the only way that they will know that is if you let them know. Lack of public engagement is why, very often, they feel like they can do what they wish with no consequences.

Zadroga Bill Congratulatory Letter to my Senator

Dear Senator Cornyn,
I understand that you voted with all other Republican Senators to keep the Zadroga 9-11 First Responders Health Care Bill from coming to the floor of the Senate for an up or down vote. Congratulations on allowing tax cuts for the wealthy to come before the health care of the true heroes who, without thinking of themselves, sprang into action on that most horrible of days.

But at least all of you Republicans stuck with your convictions, showing the rest of us where you truly stand with respect to those selfless men and women. The wealthy of this country can rest easy knowing that you and people like you are there for them, to ensure that they get those tax cut extensions, no matter who has to suffer for it.

I understand that you and your comrades are also unwilling to work the week between Christmas and New Years to try to work some things in. Senator, everyone I know (who has a job) will be working that week. Most of the people I know will make something like 1/7th your salary. I, and I am sure a lot of other people, would like to know just why it is that you and your associates believe that you are so much better than us, your employers, that you cannot work those days.

I also would like to know why it is that you and your associates, allegedly our employees, make so much more than the rest of us? You all seem to believe that the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is enough for us common schmoes to get by on, so what is the reasoning behind you guys taking so much more than that. I do understand that you guys have to maintain a residence in your home states and in Washington. So I would be willing to allow $14.50, and we can pay for your coach class airfare to and from out of the general fund. I think, however, that we are going to have to install a time clock, as from my understanding you guys don’t work full weeks even when there is no major religious holy day to conjure as a reason.

Again, congratulations on shafting the true heroes of this nation while at the same time extending tax cuts to your true constituency, the 2% of the population who make over $250k a year.

Merry Christmas to you as well. I hope yours is better than those emergency personnel you helped to shaft.

Climate Change?

It seems to me that we could seriously just pull "global warming" and even "climate change" completely off the table.

If you look hard enough, you can find arguments both ways, for and against, either supposition. What you will be unable to find, however, is any intelligent argument for continuing to pour pollutants into our air, water, and soil. Yet all of the people arguing against the possibility of global warming or climate change are arguing for polluting.

The earth is, at least for now, the only planet we have. It somewhat behooves us to look after our ability to survive on it. Seriously, we are not going to do anything, short of all out nuclear war, that would seriously and adversely affect this planet, at least on a geological time scale. The planet will bounce back from any damage we do to it.

The problem is, it will take eons, and we, the human race, can be seriously and adversely affected by our own actions. In fact, we already are. Asthma cases are on the rise, especially in urban, high pollution areas. Skin cancer is rampant.

So let us set aside this notion, however relevant, of global warming. Let us, instead, worry about pollution. If we cut the pollutants, it will affect climate change anyway.

Who Cares?

To: 9-11 First Responders

From: Republican Senators

DROP DEAD. Oh, and Merry Christmas!

After ten years of pounding the drum in honor of the emergency workers, firefighters and police officers who were first responders after the worst attack our nation has seen since Pearl Harbor, Republican Senators on Monday seemingly showed how they truly feel about those responders. In a staggeringly lock-step partisan vote, the Republican Senators, with the exception of Sam Brownback of Kansas, unanimously voted to keep the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 from coming to the floor of the Senate for a vote.

Brownback abstained, presumably because he did not want to anger his constituents with a nay vote on this important issue, but was also unwilling to anger his party with a yea vote.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, voted nay, apparently in order to keep the bill alive for further consideration.

Most Americans are unaware that it is necessary to have a full 60 vote majority to bring a bill to the floor for a vote, in cases where the minority party wishes to block it.

On December 1, 2010, all forty two Republican Senators signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, stating their intention to block from vote any bill that did not include an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans. At least they seem to be able to stick with their convictions.

UPDATE

Fox "News" reported this story, stating that "the Senate voted 57 to 42 against the bill." They did not note that the vote was 42 Republican (Obstructionist) party votes against bringing the bill to a vote, nor did they vote that the Democratic party was in favor of bringing the bill to a vote. None of the other major networks have even reported the story.

UPDATE 2

It took a bit of looking, but I have now discovered that the "Honorable" Michael Burgess, my Representative in the House of Representatives, also voted with the "nays" when this bill went through the House. I am completely ashamed to be from Texas.

James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010

57 "aye" votes (57 D)

42 "nay" votes (1 D 41 R)

1 abstain (Samuel Brownback, R-KS)

Democrats voting "nay":

Harry Reid, D-NV

Republicans voting "nay":

Lamar Alexander, R-TN
John Barasso, R-WY
Robert Bennett, R-UT
Christopher Bond, R-MO
Scott Brown, R-MA
Jim Bunning, R-KY
Richard Burr, R-NC
Saxby Chambliss, R-GA
Thomas Coburn, R-OK
Thad Cochran, R-MS
Susan Collins, R-ME
Bob Corker, R-TN
John Cornyn, R-TX
Michael Crapo, R-ID
Jim DeMint, R-SC
John Ensign, R-NV
Michael Enzi, R-WY
Lindsey Graham, R-SC
Charles Grassley, R-IA
Judd Gregg, R-NH
Orrin Hatch, R-UT
Kay Hutchinson, R-TX
James Inhofe, R-OK
John Isakson, R-GA
Mike Johanns, R-NE
Mark Kirk, R-IL
Jon Kyl, R-AZ
George LeMieux, R-FL
Richard Lugar, R-IN
John McCain, R-AZ
Mitch McConnell, R-KY
Lisa Murkowski, R-AK
James Risch, R-IN
Pat Roberts, R-KS
Jeff Sessions, R-AL
Richard Shelby, R-AL
Olympia Snowe, R-ME
John Thune, R-SD
David Vitter, R-LA
George Voinovich, R-OH
Roger Wicker, R-MS

Fair Tax

It amazes me how very little the folks we elect to run our great country seem to understand economics. They have apparently all been suckered into accepting the "supply side" or "trickle down" theory. This theory says that if the upper class, ultra-rich job creators are given more money (in the form of extremely generous tax cuts) they will "trickle down" some of those extra dollars to folks less fortunate than themselves.

This theory might actually work, with greed taken out of the picture. Unfortunately, given greed, nothing seems to actually "trickle down."

The rich actually are the job creators; they just haven't been doing any of it for the last ten years. They aren't going to magically start just because we extend the tax breaks that W and the Republican controlled congress started handing out as soon as they took over.

The USA lost over 600,000 jobs under Bush before the crash and bailouts in 2008. That was when the hemorrhaging started in earnest. And now the Republicans want to extend the tax cuts, claiming that this time it will help.

The only way tax cuts can boost the economy is if the money retained via those cuts is put into the economy. Putting it into a bank account in the Cayman Islands doesn't help our economy one little bit.

Poor and middle class folks spend any extra money they get, thereby stimulating the economy. When you give extra money to the ultra rich, who already have everything they need and everything they want, they aren't going to spend it. They already spend all the money they need to on bills and entertainment. The extra will either be socked away or spent on vacation—usually somewhere outside the USA. How does ensuring that a resort waitress in Cancun or a valet parking attendant in Paris gets a good tip stimulate our economy?

Given that the top two percent of our population (and if you earn over $250,000.00 yearly, you are one of these elite) controls almost all of the wealth in this country, I think it is somewhat disingenuous of them to proudly proclaim that they pay nearly half of the taxes. I think a group that controls ninety percent of the wealth should damn well pay ninety percent of the taxes.

You hear people (usually rich people) advocate for the so-called "fair tax," but what most people do not understand is that the fair tax, while it sounds like a good deal, would be anything but fair. The fair tax is a consumption tax, whereby people would pay taxes on the dollars that they spend.

Follow this example:

Joe Blow, a lower middle class warehouse worker, makes $400.00 a week. He spends it all on rent, utilities, gas, insurance, groceries, etc. Under the fair tax rule you pay taxes when you spend money, therefore, Joe pays taxes on the entirety of his paycheck.

John CEO makes $5000.00 a week. He spends $1000.00 on his mortgage, utilities, gas, insurance, groceries, etc., and banks the rest. He would pay taxes on the $1000.00 that he spends, but would not pay taxes on the $4000.00 that he saves or invests.

Now, some people will say, "John CEO is paying more taxes than Joe Blow, what is the problem?" Even some in Joe Blow’s shoes will not see a problem with John banking $4000.00 a week tax free while Joe has nothing to save, and pays taxes on every cent he makes.

Perhaps there is a better way to do it. I am by no means a mathematical genius, so the details will have to be hashed out by those with a better understanding than I, but I think we should change our tax code so that it taxes folks on the percentage of the nation’s wealth that they actually control.

I think standard expense deductions are the wrong way to go about it. Perhaps a better way would be to document expenses. We could say that, after you pay your rent/mortgage and utilities on your primary residence (not on your six other homes that you can’t remember, Senator McCain), and after your groceries, gas, insurance and car payments (again, one car per adult per household), child care, medical expenses and documentable education expenses, then you pay taxes on what you have left. This would give those extremely rich people incentive to send their money trickling down through the economy. How stimulating that would be!
And, once all of those pesky loopholes and frivolous deductions are taken away, imagine how much we could lower tax rates once everyone is actually paying what they owe.

I am certain that folks in that upper two percent will not like this plan, but since when does two percent of the population get to dictate to the other ninety-eight percent?