Oh Paul Ryan. If you only had a heart.
Vouchers? For medical care? For those that have retired or getting ready to do so? I know we need to balance the national budget. I'm even pretty good with math, so I realize that the path we're on is fiscal suicide. But this isn't the way to do balance it -- unless you plan to use your defense missiles to shoot the old and poor.
This is just wrong.
And now it's personal. Because you're planning to voucher me. Yeah, me. I don't feel old, yet. But those vouchers are meant for me and my friends in less than a decade. And we are going to be pissed off. We are the Prozac and Zoloft generation (X if you need a letter). We've survived craptastic nonsense in the workforce when we graduated college, rode out two major market bubbles (plus a multitude of mini bubbles that most people don't even know about) and are the heart and soul of the recovery (read the papers and analysis -- we're doing it because we know how to come back from disappointment. We've been doing it all our lives. Especially the women). Don't underestimate us.
Your vouchers take away our medical care and it will be unpleasant. Really UNPLEASANT. For example, by virtue of BAAAAD genes, I have depression and asthma. Vouchers = limited care = limited meds = dying young. Is that actually your plan? Because if it is, well, that's pretty damn brilliant. Heartless, but brilliant. And you've managed to make the estate tax go away for most folks -- again, well done you. Conner, Riley, and Ibby, you should be coming into some money within about 15 years -- tax free.
So high-five the rest of your GOP cronies. You've pulled it off. You can take your AK-47s and your defense missiles and light yourselves like Roman Candles to celebrate.
Please. I insist.
But if I had my druthers, you'd be more like the Ken doll you so readily embody -- completely mute without bendable knees or elbows. On Vouchers.
At least I opted for the Twilight one. The wolf guy. Because I think he P90Xs too.
RANT OVER. I feel better.
Here's the rational part -- I'll get there again. Just this and the assault weapons ban defeat. Too much in one week. I fully realize the statements above undermine my first paragraph below. But I'm human, and I'll own the contradiction.
Why I voted blue on Tuesday. (posted on Facebook 11 November 2012)
It seems every election cycle is the most vitriolic I’ve
seen, and this was no exception. Pundits on both sides were not only negative,
but cruel. I’ll not lie, I’ve tended to be to be more liberally minded on most
issues since I could vote. But, like my grandfather before me, I consider
myself an independent and do look at the qualities of the individual candidates
as neither party fully represents my interests (I did support President Bush
the Elder, after all).
I’m a practicing single Mormon. I believe in all the
doctrine of my church and this forms the basis of all my decisions. My litmus
test comes down to which policy will protect the agency of most people and
which policy is the most compassionate. And for me, agency is not defined by
the level of taxes I pay, whether healthcare is mandated, or guns are
regulated. It’s defined by whether we will be able to make critical decisions
about our bodies and our families. Agency is the greatest power we have, and my
vote will always be for the candidate I believe most effectively protects the
foundations of agency for all people, regardless of race, sexual orientation or
gender.
I strongly believe that the responsibility for life begins
before conception (through information, ideally abstinence before marriage, but
contraception if not) and thus the responsibility (and consequences) for making
a decision regarding the welfare of that life lies with the parents (and anyone
else they choose to involve in that process), not with the state. To be clear:
under no circumstances do I support abortion being used as post conception
means of contraception for those that made unwise decisions, but this needs to
remain the decision of those directly involved.
I believe God has ordained marriage as an ecclesiastical
construct to be between a man and a woman. However, marriage as a social and
legal construct also has very specific rights associated with it that should be
available to any two legally permitted adults who desire to be so joined. In
many countries in Europe, you must legally marry at court before you marry at
the church. No matter what angle I approach this sensitive topic, denying
same-sex couples the right to legally marry is, in my view, discrimination,
regardless of my ecclesiastical beliefs.
If I were to have voted solely based on my own personal
fiscal interests, I’d have been a Romney girl 100%. I work on Wall Street and
while I’m not the 1%, I do ok. However, I think that anyone that does well has
a responsibility to help those that do not. Some are willing to do so on their
own, but far too many are not. And I’m keenly aware that there are some that
take advantage of the social programs (I live in NYC after all). But I see far
more often people that legitimately benefit from these programs – sometimes
within my own family (who, ironically, vote red). I believe that if we provide
opportunity for people to eat, have shelter, and get an education (which needs
to be stronger in math and sciences, btw), we will have a strong base for a
stronger economy and better innovation. This is not to say that we shouldn’t
make cuts. There is unquestionably gross misuse of funds. But we need to ask
more of those that have more to give and use the resources we have far more
wisely. There’s great precedent for this – World War I, The Great Depression,
World War II. Taxes on the wealthiest Americans ranged 67%-94% during these
periods. I also think it’s helpful to look at income taxes over the past
century and compare that to income disparity.
History of income tax
rates adjusted for inflation (1913-2010)
|
|||||||
Number of
|
First Bracket
|
Top Bracket
|
|||||
Year
|
Brackets
|
Rate
|
Rate
|
Income
|
Adj. 2011
|
Comment
|
|
1913
|
7
|
1%
|
7%
|
$500,000
|
$11.3M
|
First permanent income
tax
|
|
1917
|
21
|
2%
|
67%
|
$2,000,000
|
$35M
|
World War I financing
|
|
1925
|
23
|
1.5%
|
25%
|
$100,000
|
$1.28M
|
Post war reductions
|
|
1932
|
55
|
4%
|
63%
|
$1,000,000
|
$16.4M
|
Depression era
|
|
1936
|
31
|
4%
|
79%
|
$5,000,000
|
$80.7M
|
||
1941
|
32
|
10%
|
81%
|
$5,000,000
|
$76.3M
|
World War II
|
|
1942
|
24
|
19%
|
88%
|
$200,000
|
$2.75M
|
||
1944
|
24
|
23%
|
94%
|
$200,000
|
$2.54M
|
||
1946
|
24
|
20%
|
91%
|
$200,000
|
$2.30M
|
||
1964
|
26
|
16%
|
77%
|
$400,000
|
$2.85M
|
Tax reduction during Vietnam war
|
|
1965
|
25
|
14%
|
70%
|
$200,000
|
$1.42M
|
||
1981
|
16
|
14%
|
70%
|
$212,000
|
$532k
|
||
1982
|
14
|
12%
|
50%
|
$106,000
|
$199k
|
Reagan era tax cuts
|
|
1987
|
5
|
11%
|
38.5%
|
$90,000
|
$178k
|
Reagan era tax cuts
|
|
1988
|
2
|
15%
|
28%
|
$29,750
|
$56k
|
Reagan era tax cuts
|
|
1991
|
3
|
15%
|
31%
|
$82,150
|
$135k
|
||
1993
|
5
|
15%
|
39.6%
|
$250,000
|
$388k
|
||
2003
|
6
|
10%
|
35%
|
$311,950
|
$380k
|
||
2011
|
6
|
10%
|
35%
|
$379,150
|
$379k
|
||
Source: U.S. Federal
Individual Marginal Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2009; Wikipedia
While on the subject of finances and economics, the markets need more regulations, not less. I’m in the regulatory trenches, and I’ve gone through the Healthcare, Internet, Telecom, Energy, and Real Estate bubbles. I am face to face with the minds of Wall Street every day. For those working in this business, a large part of the rush is winning the “game.” Out thinking the regs/finding the loophole is a challenging puzzle to solve. Self-interest does not regulate the market – someone always loses; the questions are timing and magnitude. We all too frequently are enacting laws to protect people against abuse of the markets that have already happened, which, of course, are useless for those were burned in the last scandal. We are currently recovering from such an episode – Frank Dodd doesn’t have nearly the teeth to prevent something like this from occurring in the future.
Finally, I feel that we have a responsibility to doing all we can to preserving the earth for future generations. It’s just as important as not handing a huge deficit to those same generations.
So, there will need to be priorities set and some things will not get done immediately – I realize that (I am well acquainted with double entry accounting and have spent quality time with both income statements and balance sheets).
And it’s not that I didn’t like Romney (well, I didn’t like his hair). But I have not liked the way Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor have represented their party (and what I believe is the minority, though well funded minority, they represent). I felt that their blatant disrespect toward the President and toward a leader in their own part (John Boehner, who I think genuinely desires to do what is best for the country, which would mean compromise) have been reprehensible. Were Romney elected, I feared that he, too, would be constrained by obligation to the likes of McConnell and Cantor. I don’t always like Obama’s decisions (ie, in the Healthcare bill, if it’s a tax, call the thing a tax for heaven’s sake), but he has stood up against his own party in the interest of compromise – I’ve seen little of that on the other side of the aisle over the past 12 years. Very little.
So I voted for Obama. It was not an evil decision. It was a prayerful, researched, well-thought out decision. Many did not agree with it, but that’s just fine. For those that voted Romney and are now seeing signs of the apocalypse, well, all I can say is, now you know how we felt in 2004. Gratefully, your re-elected president said, “By itself, the recognition that we have common hopes and dreams won’t end all the gridlock or solve all our problems or substitute for the painstaking work of building consensus and making the difficult compromises needed to move this country forward. But that common bond is where we must begin. ... And whether I earned your vote or not, I have listened to you, I have learned from you, and you’ve made me a better president. And with your stories and your struggles, I return to the White House more determined and more inspired than ever about the work there is to do and the future that lies ahead.” In 2004, President Bush said, “Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style.” He said he intended to use it on social security reform, education, moving the economy forward, and fighting and ending the wars that he had begun. I believe even those who strongly oppose Obama’s policies can take some solace from his statements.
Since we now have a lame duck president, in 4 years we’ll have no incumbent, and I’ll be interested to see who appears from both sides of the aisle (and maybe from outside the chamber altogether). I’d love to see Jon Huntsman or Chris Christie ante up. I don’t agree with them 100%, but they aren’t owned by their party. They value agency because they clearly exercise it as they govern. They’ve shown themselves to be compassionate and mindful of many issues.
But for now, divisiveness is not in anyone’s best interest (MSNBC, FoxNews, I’m looking at you). There is no “game” to win – only lives to improve. I believe the current president is desires to improve the quality of all people’s lives. I hope that his counterparts are equally willing.
P.S. Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump, would you both please just stop?
No comments:
Post a Comment