WHEN ALL THAT MATTERS IS A WIN

by Ruth A. Sheets

Before Thanksgiving, our Congress is planning to vote on major "Tax Reform" bills and have them signed by Mr. Trump before Christmas.  Republicans claim the bills they have brought forth will cut taxes for the middle class and "stimulate" our economy.  They also claim they are simplifying the tax code.  It is hard to believe even they believe these claims. 

When supporters, all Republicans in both the House and Senate, are asked about provisions of the bill, it is clear they don't really know or understand what is in the bills, let alone the consequences of passing this legislation for most Americans. They say they don't want to give tax breaks to the rich, but know full well this is what will happen.

Republicans in the Senate made sure that only Republican votes would be necessary to pass this tax overhaul and shoved hundreds of amendments into the bill which will affect large numbers of the most vulnerable Americans.  This includes cutting Medicaid and Medicare, license to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Reserve and a repeal of the most critical part of the Affordable Care Act, which was already voted down several times this year, and lots more.

What is going on here?  It is about a win, a big win.  Supposedly, Republicans promised their constituents they would repeal "Obamacare."  Because it has the name "Obama" in it, it is reflexively hated by a large number of white Americans.  "How dare a black man think he could be president and pass anything?"  So, in order to keep the loyalty of these constituents, they feel they can cheat, lie, misdirect, and generally cause harm to many Americans as long as they can claim a big win.

The one thing that is certain, if members of Congress have to prepare a bill in secret, then scheme and plot to make sure only their party gets a say in what is passed, something is wrong with the legislation.  And, of course, there is a lot wrong with it.  Cutting taxes for the wealthiest hoping they will put that money into more jobs or anything else except their bank account is  ridiculous.  Cutting corporate taxes nearly in half also hoping for more jobs, higher wages, and the return of money from offshore is a fantasy they want uninformed Americans to buy.

But wait!  Most Americans do not want these bills at all.  Over and over, polls tell all of us that Americans do not want tax cuts for the wealthy.  They like their health care.  They like the deductions for state and local taxes.  They like the deductions for student loans (even though they are very small) and those for home mortgages.  This does not seem to matter at all.  No Republicans have come forward to say "I am not voting for this thing.  My people don't want it, so I support them."  If they were to say this, their donors will supposedly pull financial support for their campaigns.  These Republican candidates are sure their courage will not be rewarded at home.  Far right candidates will be put against them and be better funded, so they will lose the seat.  

Wow!  So donors buy the seats and make demands from those who sit in them.  In New Jersey, a Senator is on trial for accepting gifts with no evidence that those gifts influenced his votes on anything.  How is he on trial when wealthy Republican donors are not?  They are getting votes for their gifts.

When the win is the only thing.  People will sacrifice their honor, their integrity, and just about everything else for it.  They will allow themselves to be threatened, cajoled, and bribed into doing things they know are wrong.  Or, they lie to themselves that what they are doing is good for everyone because it is good for them.  I keep hoping a Republican "lawmaker" will see defeating a horrific bill as a win.  I doubt I will see it any time soon, though.  So, I will mourn with the American people as we deal with the major cuts to critical programs that will come just because Republicans need a win.

WHEN ALMOST NO ONE WANTS IT

By Ruth A. Sheets

Since the election of Donald Trump, by Electoral College, the Trump administration thinks that somehow they have a mandate to do anything, and I mean anything.

When a candidate loses an election by 3 million votes, yet still "wins," it does not indicate any kind of mandate.  It is a time when the elected official should be trying to court the American people and learn what they, more than the 25% or so who put Mr. Trump over the top,  feel they need and want.  This has not happened. 

Net Neutrality?  There is no evidence that a majority of Americans want to end net neutrality and want a few corporations to have a say as to what and how much goes over the internet, and for how much.  Congress has passed a law giving permission to corporations to even sell your personal information to other companies if they choose.  I did not see/hear anywhere that Americans want that, yet, Congress and Mr. Trump did it anyway.

Tax Reform?  Has anyone officially weighed in on whether they are in favor of the huge tax cut for the richest Americans proposed by Mr. Trump's tax reform plan (the (ACHA as well)?  Do Americans want the largest corporations to have such a low tax rate that they will hardly be obligated for taxes to cover the public resources they use up?  Of course not.  Does anyone believe these corporations will in a positive way, invest the windfall in more jobs?  Not likely. 

Health Care?  When the ACA was being worked out, many individuals and medical organizations, as well as the insurance industry were asked for their input.  There were public hearings.  However, citizens were told by people with bigger mouths than the average that this law would be tragic and would bankrupt us all.  Of course there was no evidence, but so what.  The people, mostly Middle America bought the lies and no Republican lawmakers voted for ACA (Affordable Care Act).  They named it Obamacare and dismissed it at every turn, trying to repeal it 60 times and parts of it even more often.

Something strange happened when coverage began, though, people started to like what it offered them:  lower premiums, health care they had not had for a long time (if ever), the ability to have their children on their plans to age 26, pre-existing conditions covered, contraception covered, assistance with maintaining better health through regular monitoring, prescriptions covered, Medicaid expanded to help more of the "least of these.".  You get the picture.  People were actually being served.  Now, who wants it eliminated?  Who wants it changed to uninclude the aspects mentioned above?  Mr. Trump, of course, and the House of Representatives who have already voted to do just that. 

The Senate currently has 13 men meeting together in secret to make up a new health care law to please a small sector of their supporters to "Repeal and Replace."  They call their work in progress "the American Health Care Act."

Like nearly everything else the Republicans in Congress come up with, the bill's title means exactly the opposite of what the law will actually do.  It will not provide health care to any but those who already have it through their jobs.  It will lower or eliminate the number of people served by Medicaid.  The House bill allows insurance companies to determine who and what will be covered.  Pre-existing conditions will only be covered if the company says it will be.  Serious, potentially expensive health care will be handled by some kind of inadequately funded state pool for those horrible sick people, implying they are sick by their own actions. 

If you want maternity care, or reproductive health care of any kind and you are not covered on your job, too bad.  That's on you.  Nearly everything is a pre-existing condition, even having had a C-section in the past. 

Who came up with this appalling bill (which, of course, we have not seen yet), 13 white men who could not possibly care less about people's health care.  They care only that they help the corporations who support their campaigns and look like they are cutting money from the budget.  (Even the insurance companies are not pleased with the House bill.)

Mr. Trump and his few supporters have way too much power and influence.  They are trying to push through legislation to please a particular minority who will, alas, be hurt by it too.  

The one thing that is certain.  If the bill were going to be good for all Americans, it would not be drawn up in secret by a few Senators who really don't know much about health care.  Something that might help here would be a law stating that the Congress must participate in whatever bill they pass.  They would get no other financial support for health care, and have to use their "hard-earned" bucks to pay out of pocket the thousands of dollars many health conditions cost.

If they have a disabled child, they will have to pay the cost the way any other citizen without another plan would pay.  You or your wife pregnant, no problem, you pay for all of it.  You can't afford another child, pay for the contraception.  Shot while practicing for a baseball game, no problem, pay out of pocket the percentage you must pay for the deductible and whatever percentage you agree is the one insurance companies can charge.

If you put yourself in the place of the people being served by the health care programs in this country, you will ditch the plans you are working on, and start over with hearings, a variety of people in the room helping to develop the legislation.  Serious discussion and input from a wide range of Americans of all backgrounds would take place, and you would welcome it because that is how a democracy should work. 

I don't see this happening, but  I hope your actions and the people you injure by your indifference and need to bow to Mr. Trump, who knows nothing about health care and cares less, will, in time, come back to bite you and you will feel some of the pain they have been feeling.  Americans don't want your brand of health care. 

Hand Out, Hand In

by Ruth A. Sheets

It seems that again, it is in fashion to malign people who receive unemployment.  I guess conservatives did not get enough traction when they went after people on food stamps and seniors on Medicare.  Folks like Rush Limbaugh accuse those who receive unemployment of collecting instead of working, being a drain on society.  His rant went on and on about these freeloaders who could be out there working if only they tried a LITTLE harder.

It seems that Rush and his cronies consider unemployment a handout to the lazy.  According to him, this handout should be cut off.  America would be stronger and our deficit would be lowered.

I find it interesting that people who have jobs, even jobs that are of nominal value like Rush’s have no qualms berating those who no longer have the jobs they counted on for a living.  They claim that recipients of unemployment are sucking America dry.  Are they really?

I recently read that Mitt Romney got a tax break of $77,000 for his horse.  Why does Romney need such a tax break?  Because it’s there?  Why isn’t Rush bent out of shape over that and other equally ridiculous government assistance? 

My brother-in-law has a theory that I really like.  He says it’s probably because in the case of unemployment, money is being given directly to a person, who has to have their hand out.  In Romney’s case, he just gets to keep his money.  His hand stays in his pocket along with the money.  The former is overt while the latter is more covert and not as public.

So, as long as people are getting tax breaks, even for things as frivolous as horses, they are not a drain on society, but if a check is cut to enable a person/family to survive, society is being tapped.

Does anyone else recognize the hyhpocrisy here?  The addiction of the wealthy to their money requires them to make the “have nots” feel like losers and inferior people.  Rush’s rants are designed to make the non-thinkers among us believe that wealth is just around the corner for them and that the unemployed are keeping them from their dream of riches.  This is nonsense of course.

The sad part is that Rush’s audience is being used by the wealthy who care nothing about their lack of  jobs or the unemployment among their neighbors.  Give the downtrodden another group of Americans to hate.  It takes the pressure off the wealthy and their enablers.

Against Our Interests?

by Ruth Sheets
 

I have been listening to the returns from the special election in Wisconsin.  The Democrats needed to win three seats and only got two and are facing a challenge next Tuesday.  What amazes me is the fact that Wisconsin Republicans, like Republicans in many states continue to vote against their own interests.

Wisconsin Republicans went into office claiming that their major effort would be to add jobs and lower the state debt.  Their real intention was to bust public unions and cut services.  Voters don’t get it that they might not need governmental help at this moment, but that life throws surprises our way and any of them could be in the position of needing help.

We hear “We need small government.”  That seems to be the popular line with the Tea Partiers these days, but what are they willing to cut?  The programs that serve the most vulnerable, of course.  They are well aware of the reality that those citizens are least able to stand up for their needs, let alone their rights. 

Will the Tea Party willingly cut defense funds?  Probably not; they will more likely want to cut veterans money because that is easy.  Will they cut money for prisons, border patrols, funds for the war on drugs, programs for abstinence education, all programs that are wasteful and not as effective as claimed?  Not likely.  They don’t seem to care about value if the program supports their personal or social beliefs.

Cutting funds for education, food stamps, Medicaid, and other support programs seems a top priority for conservatives, even those who depend on these programs just to stay alive and to provide for their children. 

 

I heard a listing of the Federal monies that Michelle Bachman, a leading presidential candidate, has received throughout her life from the government. Hypocrisy rules even at the highest levels.  She cries “small government” while it is the government that has enabled her to be where she is. 

It is amazing how few Americans have noticed the widening of the gap between the rich and the poor.  The rank and file of the Tea Party and many other Conservative Republicans fall in the group that is moving toward the poor side.  They don’t even seem to realize what is happening.  They don’t see that none of the programs being advocated by their representatives will in any way improve their situation.  They don’t get it that their chances of moving into that higher group diminish with each day.

What is wrong with  us?  Are we hard-wired to be unable to recognize inconsistencies?  Is it part of our make-up that we stand against our own interests?  Is “the American dream” of wealth so strong that we believe we will one day be among the chosen few who are in the top 1 percent, the very wealthy?  Do we delight in the hopeful thought of being able to dictate to the rest of the poor suckers who just couldn’t make it, the ones who just didn’t work hard enough or weren’t lucky enough?

Maybe instead of teaching to tests in our schools, we should be teaching logic, ethics, basic economics, and statistics from very early grades.  That will require money and time for planning, both of which along with many other ideas are being cut.  Maybe what lies behind all the education cuts is that people who don’t know how to think for themselves are so much more easily frightened and manipulated by people who enjoy wielding power. 

Want a Tax Cut? Create a Job

by muon

Here's a simple little plan that all of Washington ought to like.  They won't, though, because the plan doesn't make the other side of the aisle look bad.  That's pretty much all they'll consider these days.

They've now decided that marriage isn't just between one man and one woman, but is now between the truest love match you can find in nature--Congress and tax cuts for the wealthy.  No divorcing one from the other, no matter what the political affiliation.  The Tea Party, in particular, will defend their nests to the death. Tax cuts, they say, are needed to create jobs.

So let's create jobs with them.

Instead of across-the-board tax breaks for all folks who can already afford things like late-night cravings for imported lavender honey, I say let's make tax cuts contingent on whether taxpayers have created jobs in the past year. Create a new job for an American in 2011, get a tax cut in April 2012.  Create 2 new jobs, get 2 tax deductions. Eliminate American jobs, get penalized.  And no cheating: you can't downsize one year, then recreate those jobs the next and claim tax cuts for them.

That simple.  Give an American a job, get a tax cut.  Hoard your money, get squat.

Instead of giving handouts to our deadbeat millionaire brothers, I say, let's make them earn their keep by putting America back to work.

WHAT’S IN A WORD?

by Ruth Sheets
 

Have you noticed that in the past few years, twisting language to fit one’s own agenda has become very popular?  “Experts” are hired to say things in just the right way.  It is a form of deception that often happens without people even realizing that they are being manipulated.  It will be extremely difficult to drive the new language from their minds because of the power of the words used.  Here are some examples:

In the past decade, elected leaders have determined that the wealthiest Americans need protection.  For generations, states and the Federal Government have collected “estate taxes” to help limit family dynasties and to help the haves contribute to the general good.  When tax cuts were being considered for the well off, during the early 2000s, estate taxes were targeted as unfair.  Most Americans approve of such taxes, so they had to be renamed.  Estate taxes became “death taxes.” 

What is the image you get of a death tax?  To start with, it is not a pleasant thought. Our natural fear of death includes our aversion of the word. Tie the word to taxes, and presto, a tax that must be ended because it is abhorrent.  How can we tax a person’s death? If anyone questions this move, actors are hired to portray people of moderate means who complain that they worked so hard and should be able to pass everything they made on to their children, (even if those children earn more than the parents).

Staying with the word “death,” we come to “death panels.”  What image does that conjure? It is certainly not a positive one. This term was the Republican response to the concept that a patient might want to discuss end-of-life issues with their doctor. Because these discussions will take a significant amount of time if done properly and with compassion, it was recommended that doctors be fairly compensated for their time.

If a legislator or candidate has the goal of stopping a plan that makes sense to a lot of people, the language must change to induce the proper amount of fear and/or loathing.  The term “death panel” does that beautifully.  Even though there is no panel involved and the whole process only involves discussion and consultation, it doesn’t matter because death panel sounds so horrific few people will want to analyze it.

Within the past few months a new term has come forward.  It seems that it is no longer acceptable to refer to the wealthy or rich in those terms.  The new Tea Party term is “job creators.”  One can logically put a case forward that the wealthiest people should pay their fair share. But call them "Job Creators"-- imply that they are the only folks who will pull us out of this economic mess --and of course it would be wrong not to give them more money.

The tax cuts in the Bush administration predominantly benefited the top 2% of Americans and we are in the deepest recession since the 1930’s.  The wealthy have been getting tax cuts for nearly a decade now.   Where are the jobs they were supposed to be creating? 

There will always be people out there ready to misdirect us with the words they use.  Our task as thinking human beings is to look behind what they are actually saying and see who benefits from the misdirection.  Maybe instead of worrying so much about how well our students do on standardized tests, we should change our focus to developing effective critical thinking skills. 

Do you think the Tea Party and their friends would like to help fund that? 

Peace,

Ruth