Internet Stickers

If you would like either of these stickers for your email or website, just copy and paste.  You have my permission.

Naught for Aught and No Change at All! GOP’s campaign on “Spending” provides useful arena for Republican Politicians’ agenda.

So it's budget time across the country.  What we hear consistently, and many have bought into, is that our biggest budget issue is one of spending.  Anyone who follows politics and watches TV, regardless network, hears of budget shortfalls and of our nation's grandchildren inheriting the tremendous amount of debt this administration has amassed.

Boy, have we been sold a bill of goods!  If it is said often enough, people start to hear it, say it more and people start to believe it, and if you keep saying it, people own it, even the liberal left wing media!  Shame on you!  But then, they are corporate owned.

First of all, prior to this current budget season, have you really thought much about the budget process, both at state and national levels?  How many of you worried about your grandchildren inheriting the national debt?  Let's get real here.  Most people don't think about the budget at all unless there are programs lost that are near and dear to each individual, but the GOP have finally found a mantra they can make appear real.  After all, with the dollar amounts involved here and how long, if ever, it is going to take to pay back, they can make their case can't they?

Where did all the money go?  "Poof?"

Let's back up a bit.  The cost of the Iraq war was 3 trillion dollars, which was not included in the Bush budget. The war in Afghanistan was initiated, and dramatic tax cuts (TWICE) that mostly benefited the wealthy.  The cost of these tax cuts was $1.8 trillion, and they weren't paid for.  OK, that brings us up to a $4.8 trillion in leftovers just from tax cuts.  I think Clinton's absconding with all the “Ws” on the Whitehouse's typewriters/keyboards left merely a tiny pock in the $127 billion surplus inherited by the G.W. Bush administration.  

In a special series "Economic Recovery Watch” by the CBPP (The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, one of the nation’s premier policy organizations working at the federal and state levels on fiscal policy) CBPP states, "The events and policies that have pushed deficits to these high levels in the near term, however, were largely outside the new Administration’s control. If not for the tax cuts enacted during the presidency of George W. Bush that Congress did not pay for, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were initiated during that period, and the effects of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression (including the cost of steps necessary to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term."  The following chart illustrates this:

 Add to all that the $700 billion financial bailout money handed to banks with ribbons and bows by Hank Paulson, Treasury Secretary under Bush, with no conditions or oversight as to how the money was to be used.  The banks used it to pad their bottom line, not to help the economy by making new loans or helping the people who were victims of their sleazy lending practices.

Are we starting to see a trend here?  Hmmmm....tax cuts for the wealthy, non-conditional free money for the banks...."Poof."

What about the 2010 elections?

Were the 2010 elections really a referendum on spending?  Really? To listen to the right-wing politicians right after the election, it was a referendum about Obamacare and Obama policies.  However since the economy is improving, unemployment is down, jobs are up, and some of the new health care initiatives are coming to fruition, the GOP had to find something else they could hang their hat on.  The sad fact is that the “spending” rhetoric of Republican Politicians is an old and worn out one.  They drag it out whenever they can’t come up with something better.

Obama is not without blame, though.  The referendum was really about his failure to use the power of his 53 percent mandate for change from voters.  Obama made the mistake of thinking the GOP in Congress would be reasonable, make meaningful contributions, and try to work in a bipartisan manner.  I can’t help but think that he, as a political strategist, wasn’t also using his attempts at offering bipartisanship to be used to help frame the campaign for the next election: He tried but the Republican leadership was the obstructionist party of “NO” (which they were).  

Angry far left progressives didn’t turn out to vote and fickle Independent voters swung the election to the right as a knee-jerk reaction.  Republican voters would have voted the way they did anyhow.  It was not a Republican victory, it was a voter protest.  Now they have to pay the price.

Bottom line, the referendum was on Obama’s and Congress’ inaction on pushing through the policies the voters gave them the power to enact, not spending.  Now they have lost some of that power.  It will be a harder battle.

GOP Budget Cuts

The following is a list of the deepest GOP budget cuts of discretionary spending (those with cuts of over $200 million) included in the Continuing Resolutions bill.  I have divided it into categories for you.  LI means it also includes low-income services.

Environmental

Clean Water State Revolving Fund   -$700M  (Program of Environmental Protection Agency - EPA)
Land and Water Conservation Fund   -$348M  (program of EPA)
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund   -$250M  (program of EPA)
Agriculture Research   -$246M  (division of USDA:  among other research programs to ensure agricultural viability, it also provides information to enhance the natural resource base and the environment)
LI -Farm Service Agency   -$201M  (division of USDA: provides conservation programs, farm loan programs for low-income farmers, programs for production of bio-fuels)
Agriculture Research   -$246M  (division of USDA:  among other research programs to ensure agricultural viability, it also provides information to enhance the natural resource base and the environment)
FAA Next Gen   -$234M (increases air travel safety while reducing aviation’s environmental impact)
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy   -$899M  (speaks for itself)


Law Enforcement

LI -COPS   -$600M  (Community Oriented Policing Services: largely used for American Indian and Alaska Native Communities and/or small or rural communities law enforcement, judiciary assistance, and violence against women)
State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance   -$256M
Treasury Forfeiture Fund   -$338M  (Fund is used for asset forfeiture to disrupt and dismantle criminal enterprises.  Also enhances enforcement against terrorist funding and illegal immigration)

Low-income Assistance 

LI -HUD Community Development Fund   -$530M (housing and economic opportunities for low to middle income people)
LI -Community Services Block Grant   -$405M  (Department of Health and Human Services:  provides States, and Federal and State-recognized Indian Tribes and tribal organizations, or other organizations funds to alleviate the causes and conditions of poverty in communities.)
LI -LIHEAP Contingency fund   -$400M  (Department of Health and Human Services: Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program helps low-income households pay their home heating and cooling bills)
LI -WIC   -$758M  (Division of USDA.  Provides funding to states for food, health care referrals, and nutrition education for pregnant women and women with children up to the age of 5 who are at nutritional risk.)  
LI -International Food Aid grants   -$544M  (Donates agricultural commodities to assist people in poor countries)
LI -CDC   -$755M  (Center for Disease Control: essential public health services)

Other Government Cuts

NASA   -$379M
Internal Revenue Service   -$593M
Department of Treasury   -$268M 
FDA   -$220M  (Food and Drug Administration)


In Conclusion:

These spending cuts proposed by the Republican leaders are not about cutting spending, they are about cutting vital programs for the poor, various non-white ethnic groups, women, children, and independent farmers.  

Here is the test of where allegiances lie:  Does the extension of the Bush tax cuts promote the well-being of those who are in need?  Does it support sustainable environmental practices?  Has it created jobs?  Has it helped the economy?  Does it do anything to make our country better at all?

Let’s see, if there are no opportunities for the poor, then the rich can get richer and no one will have the power to compete with them.  Sustainable environmental practices are expensive and will cut into their profits.  The Bush tax cuts enacted in 2003, the same ones we have now, had negligible growth impact.  After the Wall Street debacle, jobs were lost.  What makes anyone think that at the same corporate tax rate now, jobs are all of a sudden going to burst forth from mega corporations?   Corporations use this money to line their stockholder’s pockets and pay outrageous bonuses, while laying off employees in droves.  Further, the tax cuts for the wealthy are no longer tax cuts, they are the status quo.  Nothing is going to change any time soon as a result, however, if Congress repeals the tax cuts for the wealthy, there wouldn’t be such far reaching budget deficit issues.  Problem solved.

So, in a nutshell, if the Bush tax cuts resulted in something to make this a better place for the citizens of this country, to help the helpless, to make our communities safer, to heal the environment, to help resolve racism, to treat the sick, I would be all for it.  But guess what?  “Poof….”


Find your elected officials
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/dbq/officials

Federal Health Care: Suggestions to make it better.

There was a time in my life where I was so broke that $5.00 was a windfall.  After paying for the most basic survival expenses, I had no money left over, so the issue of purchasing health insurance was definitely out of my reach, and I was making too much money to receive MediCal (the California version of MediCaid).  There were other times when, through my employment, I did have health care.  I have to admit, there was an element of less stress knowing that I was covered.

Although I basically am an Obama fan there are some things on which I disagree with him.  One of them is his version of health care that still panders to insurance companies.  Personally, I would prefer universal health care but it is not likely to happen any time soon.  Having been in real estate, I know that most commercial loans are provided by insurance companies so the impact of reducing or eliminating health care insurance companies from the equation would be more far reaching than most of us are aware of, not that I would be displeased if this happened...but I digress.

I like the parts of the recent Health Care bill where patients have rights, no pre-existing conditions, no being dropped from plans, no one can be denied, and all the other basic changes on behalf of the citizens of the country.  Where I think there is a disconnect is mandating that all people must be insured.

The health care laws are made by people who make a pretty good living and for whom $500 to $1,000 per month is a reasonable price tag for insurance.  What about the people who are hardworking but have no or very little money left over?  This amount is a complete hardship.  I do understand why the mandates make sense in that to make things more competitive (and supposedly reduce prices) all people have to be in the game.  We have not had any guarantees thus far that prices will come down, in fact the insurance companies are doing everything they can to circumvent what they consider to be new lower-profit regulations, such as dropping new policies for children.  They have also been pre-emptively raising prices based on what?? 

There are some real flaws in the new health care law, however, I will ultimately back it up if I have to.  In my book, it has opened the doors to revising how health care is done in this country, which no President has ever accomplished before.  As far as I am concerned, repealing it is not an option, but we can all work to think of ways to make it better.  I believe if you want to complain, help be a part of the solution.

So how can the national health care plan be resolved to be more beneficial than detrimental?  I hope we can get a lot of discussion and suggestions because WE are the people who are affected, so WE know what we need.  The politicians use horrible health care related stories to highlight the need for health care reform, and while these people have been through hell, we really need to start focusing on what the average population needs and what is fair.

Solutions

To me, a much easier way of delivering health care insurance at the federal level would be to make insurance companies sell inexpensive catastrophic (high deductible) policies with the actual deductible to be on a sliding scale according to income and/or family size.  The more income a person has, the amount of the deductible becomes greater.  If people wanted more comprehensive coverage, they could buy it.  Quite simple, actually.  With the routine health care being provided already in the current bill, generally the out of pocket for patients would be if there was a catastrophic situation.

There are some states, localities, and health care facilities who actually charge patients the actual cost of their treatments if they are self-pay (see COST VS. PRICE: Health care providers make profits off the backs of the uninsured!).  In my experience I have been grateful to have had these resources.  I discovered I really didn't need insurance for my everyday needs.  Using the convenient care and hospital outpatient facilities were far less expensive than using a private doctor and/or paying expensive insurance premiums.

I think if states were to have a program where medical providers were mandated to provide health care for uninsured patients at or near their actual costs (building in a little for profit is ok), they should be able to opt out from the Federal Health Care Mandate.  If the states don't, the mandate is in place with the mandated catastrophic affordable policies or private policies provided by employers and those that want to purchase them.  This should take care of it in my opinion.

What are your suggestions?  Do you have any ideas as to how to make the Federal Health Care Bill better?  If your solution is to repeal the Federal Health Care Bill, please also explain how this will make things better, not just for you, but for the citizens of this nation.  More ideas are better than just a few from the lawmakers with their special interests.  If I get enough ideas, I will send them along to Washington.