E pluribus unum - Out of Many, One

In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, Mitt Romney's comments at a GOP debate in June echo loudly.  Asked by John King (CNN moderator) about the how the federal government should deal with natural disasters, Romney said this:  "Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go further and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better."  Offered a chance to back off that statement, King followed up, "Including disaster relief, though?"  Romney responded, "We cannot afford to do those things..."

Disaster relief has always been bipartisan because only the federal government is strong enough to address large scale emergencies.  Not anymore; disaster relief has become something of a political football.  House and Senate Republicans have attempted to eliminate FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) numerous times over the last two years, while Democrats have fought to preserve it.

Today, however, there are no Republicans or Democrats on the East Coast.  There are only survivors.  When lives are at stake, people work together, regardless of political affiliation. 

Republican Governor Chris Christie's comments today regarding President Obama's efforts (taken from the New York Times, 10/30/12):  "Wonderful,” “excellent” and “outstanding” were among the adjectives Mr. Christie chose.  And, while national Republicans complained about Christie's remarks, the governor said, "I have a job to do in New Jersey that is much bigger than presidential politics."

President Obama's comments today:  "America is with you. If they are getting no for an answer somewhere in the federal government, they can call me personally at the White House,” adding: “Get resources where they are needed as fast as possible, as hard as possible, and for the duration."  He offered praise for Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City and Governor Christie of New Jersey for "the extraordinary work they have done."

This is the way we have always handled emergencies - together, as one.  And, this is the way we should handle our fiscal crisis, too - as one.  

However, Mitt Romney's approach sounds more like a budget manager than a statesman.  Here's what Romney told the Weekly Standard in an interview published April 2nd, 2012:  "...I anticipate that there will be departments and agencies that will either be eliminated or combined with other agencies. So will there be some that get eliminated...? The answer is yes, but I’m not going to give you a list right now."   That should give you a clue about the real Mitt Romney:

"Mitt Romney was not a businessman; he was a master financial speculator who bought, sold, flipped, and stripped businesses. He did not build enterprises the old-fashioned way—out of inspiration, perspiration, and a long slog in the free market... Instead, he spent his 15 years raising debt in prodigious amounts on Wall Street so that Bain could purchase the pots and pans and castoffs of corporate America, leverage them to the hilt...and then deliver them back to Wall Street for resale."  David Stockman - October 15, 2012, The Daily Beast

The question should not be what departments and agencies will be eliminated.  Mitt Romney does not make our country stronger by eliminating FEMA, unemployment benefits, food stamps, pushing Medicare seniors into private insurance, privatizing Social Security and cutting Medicaid and education - while at the same time eliminating taxes on capital gains, interest and dividends.     

The question should be this:  How do we keep EVERYTHING and still keep our country strong.  Everything is important and everyone is important.  The answer is everyone contributes a little more and everyone sacrifices a little more.  Whether it's a corporation or a person (is there a difference these days?), let's make it patriotic to support our society - all of it.  We don't balance the budget on the backs of any one group - we don't cut the support out from under seniors and the poor.  And, we don't prohibit people from making a fortune, either.  We simply ask everyone to sacrifice a little more, while asking everyone to accept a little less.

Whatever the challenges are, whether it be a national emergency, or whether it is solving government deficits, we do it together, each person making the contribution they are able, while sacrificing what they can, moving toward a better future as one people, as one nation.  Let's take our motto seriously - E pluibus unum.  Out of many, one.

And, that is a view from Missouri.

Don't Tax Me, Bro!

One of the main elements of the Mitt Romney presidential campaign is his proposal to cut personal income tax rates by 20%.  Romney is careful to point out he intends to offset the rate cut by eliminating individual deductions, such as home mortgage, but somehow it's all going to work out:  Taxpayers will pay less, but the government will receive the same amount of revenue.  It isn't true, of course, and Democrats are correct to point out Romney's proposal doesn't add up. 

Here's what Romney's proposal means for individual taxpayers:

70% of taxpayers do not itemize deductions, which appears to mean the larger portion of taxpayers can simply receive full credit for a 20% rate reduction on their taxes.  Not true because of three words:  Alternative Minimum Tax.  A 20% reduction in tax rates pushes the AMT farther down into middle class wage earners.  Be aware that the Romney proposal does not address the AMT.  If you're thinking Congress will pass an AMT patch (which raises the AMT minimum income eligibility), as they have done in previous years, forget about it.  The AMT patch is being held hostage by dueling spending bills in Congress.

If you are among the 30% who do itemize deductions, deductions will be capped, except for people in the highest tax brackets because Romney also proposes eliminating all capital gains, interest and dividend taxes.  In 2011, middle income wage earners received only 3% of their income from capital assets, while 70% came from wages.  By contrast, the top 1% received 35% of their income from capital assets, while only 30% came from wages.  Since Mitt Romney reported no income from wages on his tax return last year, the effective tax rate for him, and others like him, would fall to near zero under his proposal.

Romney's 20% across the board rate reduction is actually a plan to allow the wealthy to pay less tax while shifting more of the tax burden to the middle class.

Here's what Romney's proposal means for government revenues:    

Even the most conservative economists admit the elimination of deductions, even if all of them were to be eliminated, does not pay for a 20% across-the-board reduction in tax rates.  Estimates of a government shortfall go as high as 5 trillion dollars.  What Romney is counting on is that tax cuts will promote economic growth to make up the difference.  There is no data that supply side economics actually works.  There is plenty of evidence to the contrary, however.

The history of tax cuts does not favor the Romney proposal.  The Reagan tax reform act of 1986 slowed the economy to negative economic growth.  George H.W. Bush and Clinton both raised taxes and the economy boomed.  The George W. Bush tax cuts, over time, contributed to economic collapse.  Romney's proposal is a recipe for disaster, both for individual taxpayers and the economy. 

Bruce Bartlett, who served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, may have said it best, "I think he (Romney) and his advisers simply made up a proposal that was everything to everybody without checking for internal consistency." (NY Times, Aug. 21, 2012)

And, that is a view from Missouri.




 

Are These Guys Out of their Mind?

The reason many childhood diseases have been eliminated from the United States is simple:  All schools, public and private, require immunizations.  Children can't attend school without them.  As a result of mass immunizations, once feared childhood diseases have been eradicated.  This is an example of great health policy - complete coverage for the protection of everyone at the lowest cost.

That is why Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan must be out of their minds when Romney says, "When I'm elected president, my first day in office, I will repeal ObamaCare."  The key to great public health is to cover everyone.  Over the long term, it produces a better result at less cost.

If a "cover everyone" system is cheaper and healthier, why hasn't it been adopted until now?  Health care didn't start out as a national program in the same way that Social Security did.  As a result, health insurance came to be regulated by the states instead of the federal government.  While health insurance companies have grown into corporations that transact business across state lines, state insurance departments don't regulate across state lines.  Without a national health care policy, companies have held states hostage by unilaterally setting rates, defining coverages, and if state insurance departments refuse to accept the terms, companies pull out.  As costs have escalated out of control, health insurance companies have become effective lobbyists, political contributors and no president has had the political will to take on the health insurance industry and establish a national health care policy.

The Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) is not a government take over of the health care system, but rather a coordination of health care policy that sets minimum standards for consumers and insurance companies across the country.  It fills the coverage gaps that private insurers have failed to address.  Republicans readily accept such national policy coordination over the entire spectrum of business and industry.  With health care costs approaching 20% of the entire economy, isn't a national health care policy needed?

Medicaid and Medicare are also big parts of the health care system, but the G.O.P. doesn't like those improvements, either.  Republicans claim the Obama administration would cut 716 billion dollars from the Medicare program.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The Obama administration would slow the future growth in Medicare costs by 716 billion without any cut in services to beneficiaries.  Romney claims controlling costs in Medicare would force hospitals to refuse to accept Medicare.  Again, not true.  Any hospital which has accepted any federal funds for any purpose whatsoever is required by law to accept Medicare.  Romney claims doctors will stop accepting Medicare.  Again, not true.  Physicians are already free to accept or decline any health plan.  The real problem is not the lack of doctors who accept Medicare, it's a basic shortage of primary care physicians.  Many primary care practices are closed to new patients, no matter what insurance plan they have.  That will be made worse by Romney, who plans cuts to the student loan program, something which is essential to pay medical school costs that are nearly $250,000 for every graduate.

While the Obama administration has used some of the savings created by the Affordable Care Act to increase coverage to low income seniors, children and the disabled through Medicaid payments, Republicans have fought the adjustments.  Republican governors have declined to accept funding increases even though they are fully paid for by the federal government through 2016 and 90% funded through 2020.  Romney would actually cut the program in half by 2030.  Quoting the Congressional Budge Office: "Because of the magnitude of the reduction in federal Medicaid spending under the (Romney/Ryan) proposal... states would face significant challenges in achieving sufficient cost savings through efficiencies to mitigate the loss of federal funding. To maintain current service levels in the Medicaid program, states would probably need to consider additional changes, such as reducing their spending on other programs or raising additional revenues."

The Obama administration has done what no other president has been able to accomplish: put the nation on a course toward a national health policy that reduces costs and increases care.  I'm sure Governor Romney agrees since he helped pass a nearly identical plan as governor of Massachusetts.  But, candidate Romney doesn't - he's running for president.

And, that is a view from Missouri.