State of the Union

First of all, good job Saints, but come on Colts! Get it done! I'm disappointed. Let's get a snow day! And this is my first post on the newly downloaded Google Chrome. I'm trying it out... I've heard Internet Explorer isn't very good. So far I like Chrome. I might try Firefox eventually, but who knows?

More importantly, I read a transcript of Obama's State of the Union '10, and I definitely have some comments. I know it took me longer than expected, but I'm doing my best. It's really long, so I've only read about half of it, but hopefully I can finish. It's similar to when I read books... it's hard to just read half. Once you get that far you might as well finish. But I need to write something, so I'll discuss what I know so far.

The worst of the storm has passed, but the devastation remains

One of Obama's greatest messages that I've heard. It's a great line, very profound. This line came about not very far into the speech, when the President was talking about the economy and jobs-- one of the most pressing issues of his administration. However, a lot of what he said was that they're doing their best, because after all, he was left with the responsibility of fixing the situation when he took office. In the very same paragraph as the storm metaphor, he said, "One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt."

This seemed to be a big theme in the speech, that the current administration was given many problems, and have done their best to help. Which I think is partly true, partly false. They might have saved the banking system, but by doing that, the government added historical amounts of debt to the national deficit. They might have helped the automotive industry stay afloat, but once again, they added huge amounts of debt. That seems like something that would be bad for the economy...

One of my questions, though, is if this administration talks big, but contradicts themselves in many ways? It sure seems like it to me. In the midst of all these economic stimuli and bailouts, the government is saying they want to cut spending. They also say that the deficit is bad, but they've set record numbers of spending in one year. I think Obama had an excuse for this, too, though. It was that they were fixing a previous administration's errors.

There were a few things that I liked to hear from Obama. I can't say if it's all talk, but I think it's good that he at least acts like he realizes that people are against these two things:

Party politics. I think I've talked before about how divided the government is, and even today, I saw it in the congressional votes. The Democrats seem to vote for Democrat-sponsored bills, and the Republicans seem to do the same for their party's bills. Like I said, it is so sad that the Congress members from one state mostly don't agree on issues. In the Senate, it seems impossible to pass anything without 60 votes. Because of that, not much is getting done, simply because of the party divisions.

"I'm also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform," Obama said. The second thing that he talked about that Americans are pissed about is earmarks. If the government wants to cut spending, they absolutely need to do something about earmarks. Senators and Representatives should not be able to tag spending for a rainforest in Iowa onto a defense spending bill. It is such a huge waste of money that could be prevented. Defense spending bills should only have items in them that have to do with defense.

For now, that's enough. I'll be back, though.

State of the Union

As I was busy last night, I unfortunately missed President Obama's State of the Union address. My goal is to watch it this weekend and have a post by Tuesday. For now, you can just read this. It's not a comprehensive summary of the speech, but it takes a good look at one of the aspects of the speech.

Money Talk

I won't repeat everything this NY Times post says, but basically it says that the Senate will vote this week on the possibility of creating a commission focused on finding ways to reduce the deficit. In some ways, I totally agree with this, but I do have reservations about it.

Spending is definitely a problem in our government, and not just now, it has been for a while. In recent years, the federal deficit has grown immensely, especially in with the 'bailouts' that have been given. This graph shows the federal deficit as a percentage of GDP starting with the Hoover presidency. "Hoover got us in, and WWII got us out. Bush got us in, and to his credit, started trying to get us out," Stephen Stoft wrote under the graph. 

To end the Great Depression, the federal government started huge spending projects to stimulate the economy and give people jobs, much like they have attempted during the current recession. However, the difference between those projects and those of today is the fact that Roosevelt's New Deal helped revive the country from a horrible economy, where unemployment was much higher than the dreaded 10% that we hear about today. 

Today, the NY Times also reported that Obama, in his State of the Union Address, will call for a freeze in many federal spending programs. Once again, I am so happy that the government at least seems to be acknowledging the fact that they spend way too much money! However, the deal that Obama is proposing will only cut a tiny fraction of the spending that is expected in the years that it will be in effect. And somehow, at the same time as this freeze occurs, the government wants to be able to provide more services...

Healthcare? How can health care reform be achieved if the government is truly dedicated to cutting spending and reducing the deficit? That makes absolutely no sense, unless someone in the government is named Alexander Hamilton. 

Game Changer

The healthcare debate has just been thrown a curveball. On Tuesday, Massachusetts voters chose republican Scott Brown to replace the late Ted Kennedy in the U.S. senate. Brown will be the only republican in Congress from the largely democratic state. For Massachusetts, his election means that their state healthcare program will have a better chance of being left alone. A new federal plan would likely disrupt the program that Brown helped to install in Massachusetts.

Brown, a former model, will be the 41st republican in the senate, disrupting the democratic control over a filibuster by the republicans. There have been rumors that the democrats would possibly rush a vote on healthcare reform before Brown gets sworn-in, but nothing has happened yet, and nothing should. If the Senate were to pass a health care bill in the next few days, just before the Massachusetts senator-elect were to be seated, the bill would be tainted. Who wants a health care bill that only 99 senators were able to vote on. The state of Massachusetts probably doesn't even want a federal healthcare bill, as they already have a state-wide system.

Congress has been debating healthcare for months now, and it seems as if President Obama may finally be expressing some anger that nothing has happened. In the days leading up to the election, Obama pleaded with the voters and with the democratic candidate, Martha Coakley, to preserve the democratic control in Congress. The New York Times said yesterday,

As voters went to the polls, Robert Gibbs, White House press secretary, made it clear that the president was "not pleased" with the situation Ms. Coakley found herself in. "He was both surprised and frustrated," Mr. Gibbs said.

Of course Obama would be frustrated! The center of his campaign was healthcare, and nothing has been done! I would be mad too, but apparently the people of Massachusetts were mad enough to vote in a republican who would staunchly oppose democratic healthcare plans.

Sides of the Healthcare Debate

There were a few things in today's paper that caught my eye today. I try to read the political articles, but more often than not, I skip them. Because they're boring. I'll be honest; they can be really boring. That is, unless they're not. Like the opinion piece on healthcare with comments from both Iowa senators: democrat Tom Harkin and republican Chuck Grassley.


For the most part, the Harkin side of the page was about all the ways that a health care bill would be good for everybody. Mostly that meant that people who don't have healthcare would get it and everything would be all perfect! However, there was absolutely no mention of the costs of the bill, what it would cost people who already have healthcare. Mr. Harkin, I would like to know these figures so that I can weigh the pros and cons of the bill. Please don't try to make me seem stupid by only giving me the positives. (That don't really affect me anyway)

On the other side of the page, our Iowa senator Chuck Grassley made hardly any mention of the benefits of a health care bill, and instead took the financial approach. He made it clear that the bill would cost billions of dollars, adding huge amounts to our already huge deficit!

So there are two issues that I see with this article

First: do we really need a healthcare bill if it's going to cost so much, and mostly benefit only the people without healthcare?

Second: the party divisions around this bill (and every other) is astounding. Just look at the two Iowa senators- they rarely vote with each other on a big bill. Every time I look in the paper at the Congress votes, it's always all the democrats on one side and all the republicans on the other. That is such a shame that two senators, who are supposed to be representing the state of Iowa either can't agree on what the people of this state need, or they simply vote with their party.

I wish our leaders would make decisions that mattered to their constituents, not their parties.

Tax Reform

Last week, the House of Representatives passed a bill that plans to extend the estate tax permanently with relief for families and small businesses. The bill, HR 4154, would effectively eliminate the 2001 tax act that planned to repeal the tax in 2010 and reinstate in the next year at the level it was at before 2001. Introduced by North Dakota representative, democrat Earl Pomeroy, the bill keeps the exclusion amount the same, as well as freezing the maximum rate at 45 percent. While it keeps the tax from increasing at all, the bill does eliminate the reprieve that was planned and expected by many in 2010.

The estate tax is simply a tax on whatever is included in a deceased person's will that is passed on to heirs or to other people. My question is, why do we even have to tax these transfers? You can't even escape the "death tax" by giving away your stuff before you die! There's a gift tax for those transfers. My parents don't get taxed for giving me twenty bucks to go to the movies; why when they die, will a lot of their estate be given to the government? Shouldn't that be my money? I'm pretty sure my parents don't work their whole lives, buy a home, and save money for retirement for the government. I think they're content with sales tax and income tax and property tax, but to have to give the government the money that they saved? I don't think so.

The rates for the estate and gift tax are high! If a $3.5 million estate was given to me, the rate on it would be around 45%. For the federal estate tax. In Iowa, we also have an "inheritance tax". So basically, half of the amount will be given to the government. I hope they enjoy it and spend it wisely! If that same amount were taxed as income, the federal rate would be about 35%, and less than 10% for my Iowa tax.

Truthfully, most estates don't pay estate tax; it's mostly the richest estates. As I read more and more about taxes, especially the estate tax, I am realizing that taxes are really a lot worse for the wealthy. They might have more money, but they likely worked harder for it. I know I have a lot, but I'm not excessively money-rich. I doubt the estate will even apply to my parents', but I can't know for sure. However, I respect the fact that they had to earn that money somehow. They probably went through college, and worked hard in their careers, so shouldn't they be rewarded for that? There's a mentality in the country that the rich should pay for the poor, surely fueled by politicians appealing to the multitudes of middle to poor voters. If there were flat taxes, the rich would still pay for the poor, because 10% of their income or estate is much more than 10% of a poor family's income or estate.

Before I go into why I dislike the taxing system, I would like to say that I am not against taxing, just against the way it is done. Taxes pay for many good things in this country. Back when politicians did many things that mattered, they built things: railroads, highways, libraries, etc. Not only do these projects create a need for jobs, they are the best stimulus package the government could give. Buildings and highways need lots of materials, and building more of them spurs industry, creating even more jobs. Things just get done with the money.

Taxes also help to keep bank CEOs in their mansions, give money to ridiculous projects (rainforest in Iowa City??), and provide money for the government to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants. Well, you could write a letter to your congressman.

So, my question is, why is there such waste of money, helping to grow a massive federal deficit, even though there are incredible amounts of money going in to the government from taxes? The Iowa government has simply cut employees if it's budget doesn't come out in the black. Yeah, it's not nice to dissolve jobs, but it's not nice to have a deficit either.

I have often thought of taxes in this way. It all starts with a job; I work to earn money to live. To get to work, I have to buy a car and gas. Taxed. I get paid from my job. Income tax, social security, medicare, ... I spend money at businesses. Taxed. Oh, but then that money is income for them, they are taxed on it again. When I die, my estate is taxed before it is passed on to my heirs. How crappy. So much of our money is handed to the government, only for them to use more than what we give them to "stimulate" jobs, to stimulate the economy. If they just taxed less, wouldn't those things naturally be stimulated that much more?

I'll pay my taxes quietly, even the estate tax, but I just want to make sure that the entity that collects them is using the money wisely. Make sure that my hard-earned money isn't wasted paying for an huge bureaucracy that spends huge sums on things that don't matter. Make sure that our money is being used in ways that we, the people of this country, truly approve of.

Final Shift Discussion

No more odd this, odd that. Daily Donut from now on. End of title discussion. Anything else that was stated in previous posts remains unchanged, especially about new discussions.

I have found a good website that I think I will use as a resource for this venture. It contains a record of congressional proceedings that is published daily as long as congress is in session. I got the idea to write about this from my local newspaper, which publishes congressional votes, so that will also be a huge resource for me. While the paper does publish the votes of my congressmen, I will also use The Washington Post's Votes Database for further information pertaining to Iowan congressmen and other lawmakers around the country. Lastly, for simpler explanations of the votes (other than the word for word record) I will utilize multiple other resources as I get going.

Because the Gazette usually prints congressional votes on Sundays, and that will be my first line of information, the votes I will be discussing will normally be for the previous week. The only thing I can think of right now that would cause me to write about something earlier is something like if the Senate made a major decision on the healthcare bill that is there right now. Another reason for waiting a few days to start writing is that it simply gives me time to learn more about it, and it gives my sources time to gather the facts and put them together.

One thing I haven't discussed too much yet is how I will take my view, and whether it will be party-based. I would like to just say that I don't affiliate completely with a party. It bothers me when people refer to Conservatives as republican, Republicans as conservative. This also applies to liberal and democratic. There are plenty of Republicans out there who have proven themselves to not be fiscally conservative. Alternatively, there can be conservatives who aren't republican. This goes the same for Democrats. Some of them can be conservative; they don't all want to spend, spend, spend.

This is basically my approach to politics. I don't have to associate myself with one party in order to have beliefs. I don't always agree with the Democratic financial ideas, but I tend to side with them on the more social issues (i.e. stem-cell research). Therefore, my views on specific congressional votes won't be based as much on party affiliation as they will be just on my personal beliefs. However, much like a reporter, I will do my best to leave my opinions out when giving the raw facts. When I get to the section towards the end where I give my vote and an explanation, opinion is fair game. I debated whether or not to talk about what my opinion is, but I think it's important to get it out there. If I wanted to be a reporter, I would go work for the newspaper, not write blogs.



I would also like to add that I am only using the Gazette as a starting point, not as my main source of information. You can read the section (go to page 8B) with the congressional votes if you want. I think it is pretty neutral, though.

Next post= last week's progress on healthcare (finally).