Entitlements Beyond Insanity

All the Democratic presidential candidates espouse the need for increased funding for existing entitlements and are promising new entitlements. There is a reason for this.

A large proportion of their constituency enjoys the proceeds of government largess. The Democrats hone this dependency. Without this voter block the Democratic Party would collapse. Thus, they must feed the beast that keeps them relevant.

Most of the class warfare rhetoric spawned by the Democrats is based on the inequality of income. The US Census Bureau’s statistics show the top 20% of households report $14.30 of income for every $1.00 at the bottom.

This figure is skewed by excluding taxes, the $750 billion in social safety net programs and the disproportionate number of people in each category. When adjusted for these factors, the top fifth of the population has $4.21 of income for every $1.00 in the bottom tier. They also contribute 33% of the labor, according to the Heritage Foundation.

The safety net includes: $522 billion in cash, food, housing, medical care, and social services such as subsidized day care, plus the $257 billion subsidizing medical care for the elderly (Medicare). The soon to be $80 billion for elderly prescriptions is also excluded from the income inequality ratios. Without new programs, by 2012, income redistribution will exceed $1 trillion.

Currently the US Treasury collects about $2.7 trillion annually and is $9 trillion in debt. Adding national healthcare and government paid college will require an additional $2 trillion annually by 2010. Increased funding for the current entitlements and education, to the level the Democrats demand, will require an additional $600 billion. To pay for these programs the government will need an additional $2.6 trillion/annually in new revenues.

The Democratic candidates have explicitly stated that the taxes required for these new entitlements will not impact the middleclass or the poor.

Perspective is important. The figures of the U.S. Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis, show that the top 20% of households, those earning above $84,000, pay 82% of the federal income taxes, and 66% of federal taxes overall. These households can include two wage earners, each making $42,000 a year.

This is the group (the top 20% of households) that the Democrats consider wealthy. The US Treasury would have to confiscate over 70% of this group’s gross, earned income to fund their entitlement programs.

According to the Tax Policy Center of the Brookings Institute, state and local taxes, on average, will claim at least 24.3% of the gross personal income of families in 2007. These revenues are generated by sales and income taxes, property and excise taxes, license fees, road tolls, etc.

In summary, those households earning more than $84,000/annually would have to forfeit 85% to 90% of their gross income to local, state and federal governments to bankroll the Democratic call for shared responsibility.

This formula would destroy the nation.

Iraq, a Distraction?

Poll after poll indicates that Americans believe the country is moving in the wrong direction. Much of this discontent is linked to the battlefront in Iraq. But this contentious issue is more the scapegoat than the underlying cause.

Most all Americans are aware that:

Litigation and frivolous lawsuits are out of control.
High schools are graduating kids who can barely read or write.
US manufacturing has moved offshore.
Our borders are unprotected for political reasons.
The interest payment on the national debt is over $400 billion annually.
Single parent homes and daycare centers have become the norm.
Religious symbols are disappearing from the public square.
Politicians whipsaw our healthcare system for political gain.
Companies and government universally hide behind automated answering systems.
The courts have become a playground for social experimentation.
The cost of higher education is defying gravity.
Political correctness undermines candor and honesty.
America’s airlines and vehicle manufacturers are hemorrhaging.
The United Nations is anti-American.
American jobs are being outsourced.
Natural disasters have undermined our confidence in the nation’s preparedness.
Twelve to twenty million illegal immigrants are swamping our infrastructure.
Criminal rights are better protected than victim rights.
The salary and bonuses of CEOs are out of control.
Diversity is an excuse for racial discrimination in our colleges.
Earmarks are at the heart of political corruption.
Government oversight committees pander strictly to political objectives.
Environmental issues have reached the zenith of political hyperbole.
The news media is drowning in political subjectivity.
The tax code is a disaster.
Lobbyist input dominates political consideration.
English, our common language, is being equated with intolerance.
School busing to achieve racial balance is a failed policy.
The Internet has become a bastion for child predators and character slander.
Partisan rhetoric permeates the discussions on energy solutions.
Ethical standards, morality and personal responsibility are disdained.
Creeping regulations erode freedom of choice.
The First Amendment is used to condone outright obscenity.
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are time bombs.
Entitlement programs address the symptoms rather than the root causes of poverty.
The religious are branded as trouble makers.
Government waste is rampant and ignored.

And hypocrisy is the political elixir of choice in the halls of Congress.

Respectfully, this nation is headed down the wrong path. It’s being led by politicians more interested in their political survival than the welfare of the nation.

Iraq is a distraction compared to the unraveling of the spirit, integrity, principles and unity of America.

The Tainted Print Media

What happened to the print media’s conscience and the influence of the Fourth Estate? The former is comatose and the latter is in tatters. Don’t blame the Internet. The condition is a result of suicide by a thousand cuts.

Try to find a front page, news story on immigration, terrorism, Iraq, Iran, Israel and Gaza, Korea, health care, education, entitlements, the environment or elections that doesn’t reek of political posturing. The national media uses news as a platform to influence public opinion. The front pages and lead stories are totally subservient to electioneering.

The print media’s prejudice not only exists in its text, but also in the subjects brought to the table and where they choose to place the news.

Agendas are spinning out of control. Slanted diatribes masquerade as insightful criticism. Opinions substitute for facts. The words of historical figures and political opponents are pulled from context to ridicule and demean. The analyzes incorporate selective documentation.

And that’s the good news. The bad news is, it’s nearly impossible to discern the truth in this labyrinth of political persuasion.

The articles and comments found on the Internet can be entertaining, and sometimes accurate. Most that enter this portal expect to find subjective thinking. It is a great outlet for opinion, but will never be esteemed for its universal objectivity.

Mistrust is the culprit that has brought the icons of American media to their knees. In their quest to secure and broaden their shrinking audience, traditional media has succumbed to the popular appeal of the Internet. It’s been a slow evolution, not a revolution.

It has been a few years since print media stopped objective, factual reporting—and became an Internet copycat. Worse yet, many newspapers seem to collect their news from this digital bastion of non-objectivity.

Why would any American looking for news bother to buy a newspaper, when its only distinguishable feature from the Internet is the delivery vehicle? The decision of traditional media to emulate the Internet shriveled the need to look beyond this marketplace for news.

The question our national print media should ask itself: Is our plummeting readership caused by Internet competition and cable news, or by our lack of objectivity?

It seems the Internet has infected the discipline and integrity once required of traditional news gatherers. Most of the weekly news magazines and national broadcasters have depreciated their value in a similar manner.

It would be refreshing if just one newspaper proclaimed that for thirty days it would make every effort to report the news without bias, or injecting opinion. It would be difficult to believe this disclaimer, because it’s obvious they couldn’t deliver. It’s not a question of good faith. They are so inured to their own propaganda that they no longer recognize the institutionalized bigotry in their ranks.

Our newspapers and national broadcasters, once the conscience of America, have forsaken the right to be respected. Today, their content is indistinguishable from the commercials and ads.

We’ve lost a national treasure.

The Reality of Shared Responsibility

Most Americans hope, maybe pray, that Battle Front Iraq slides into the United States’ win column months before the 2008 presidential election. There are obvious exceptions. All the Democratic presidential contenders have staked their election success on the ability of Iran, Syria and their al Quada proxies to keep the bloodshed flowing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If Iraq remains an unquestionable quagmire, every political barometer points to a Democratic victory in 2008. Their majorities in both chambers of Congress will be strengthened. Setting aside the aftermath of a US retreat from Iraq and the implications of a major win for the Islamic terrorists, this is a watershed election.

Of greater import than Iraq, is the domestic agenda of the Democrats. The leading candidates have clearly outlined and share, with minor nuisances, a similar platform. They all want nationalized healthcare, government paid college education for all Americans and increased funding for all existing entitlements.

The Democrats’ definition of the American Dream is being at the front of the line for a new government handout. Let’s examine the economic impact of their definition.

Including the current costs of Medicaid and Medicare ($713 billion annually), if the government nationalizes all healthcare services, currently estimated at $1.5 trillion, the additional taxes required will be $787 billion annually.

In the last Decennial Census, 2000, the US Census Bureau states that 14.4 million Americans were enrolled in four year college programs. The average cost of private and public university education is $22,000/year.

In the last five years the cost of a college education rose 35%. Conservatively estimate that a government paid college program would increase enrollment to 20 million students and that college costs inflate another 35% over the next five years. The annual cost to the taxpayers in 2012 will be $677.6 billion.

Social Security is a looming disaster. Depending on the data source, it is estimated that an additional $280 billion to $400 billion will soon be required to stabilize it. Again, this is an annual cost.

In 2006 the United States Federal Government collected $2.4 trillion in tax revenues. The current deficit from government over-spending eats $400 billion/annually in interest payments. A balanced budget does not eliminate this debt. It merely pays the interest. Remember that it is an uncontested fact that the average middle class family currently spends 35% of its income on taxation.

Now add $1.75 trillion in new entitlements to the government budget, keeping in mind that the increased funding the Democrats demand for other entitlements is not included in this number.

If elected, the Democrats have promised amnesty to an estimated 12 to 20 million illegal aliens. The Democrats and Republicans agree that each illegal costs the US taxpayers $19,000 each. Twelve million illegal aliens granted amnesty will cost the taxpayers $2.3 trillion.

The Democrats’ definition of the American Dream will literally bankrupt the nation. Corporations will flee the US borders, interest rates and inflation will sky rocket and jobs will evaporate. This is what Democrats call Shared Responsibility.

Inherent Contempt

Since they took control of Congress, the Democrats have spent the majority of their time hunting for witches. Nearly every Congressional Democrat, with a modicum of name recognition, is flailing about on some committee or panel created to discover evil doers.

All voters should appreciate the Academy Award worthy, sad faced, hand wringing when any Democrat steps before a microphone and begins, “I just can’t believe . . . .” This is akin to a child with stuffed cheeks, standing next to an empty jar, denying any knowledge of how the cookies disappeared.

It is good theater, intended to fill the airwaves with accusations. Other than artfully substituting and intermingling accusations with evidence, this Congress has accomplished nothing that serves the greater good of the nation. Of course, that is not the intent of the charade.

It’s a well orchestrated spectacle to brand “anything Republican” as suspect. Lest we forget, the 2008 elections are around the corner. This political strategy is not new. The Roman emperors built coliseums to distract, entertain and keep the populace’s mind off the serious problems the empire faced.

Nero, who struck the match that ignited Rome, blamed the Christians and threw them to the lions to the delight of the blood thirsty crowd. It’s a bit more civilized today. The Democrats hurl unfounded accusations to the media to quench the appetite of the red-meat-eating rabble sitting in the left bleachers.

Be mindful that Nero confiscated the burnt out quarters of the citizens to expand his personal holdings in the capitol city. Would it be presumptuous to suggest that the Democrats’ scorched earth policy has a similar intent?

The Democratic “Gotcha Campaign” is backfiring. If Congress’ approval rating gets any lower, it would only indicate that they don’t think well of themselves. They know they are only 535 votes above a zero approval rating.

Their ranting and raging and smoke-and-mirrors accusations have turned off the public. The result column of these shenanigans is filled with goose eggs. Rather than concentrating on important issues to redeem themselves, the Democrats are resurrecting an arcane piece of legislative law, called Inherent Contempt, to continue the charade.

Inherent Contempt is a counter-measure to the executive branch’s use of the Executive Privilege defense when Congress issues subpoenas. It’s legal and court tested. It circumvents the accused person’s right to have the dispute settled in the US courts.

Its advantage to Congress is that either chamber, by simple majority, is judge, jury and executioner. The rights guaranteed in the Constitution, such as the 5th Amendment, don’t protect the defendant. In a layperson’s lingo, it’s a kangaroo court.

If the Democrats resort to kangaroo courts to besmirch their adversaries, ordinary Americans will view them as little more than a bankrupt lynch mob.

The Political Tightrope

It's a tough time to be a presidential candidate. The political climate is ugly and nasty. The presidential candidates are rigidly scripted and even practice their answers to potential questions. By comparison, robots are spontaneous.

The devil is in the details; thus they speak in generalities. Their families have become fair game in these contests. The road to the White House is a treacherous path, fueled by animosity and a “win at any cost” mentality.

Much of this can be attributed to the voices of the far left and right, the Kool-aid drinkers. The Internet has given them voice and audience. Accusations and credible evidence are indistinguishable in this whirlpool of disinformation.

But these are the people that vote in the primaries. Without this support, the presidential aspirants will never see their names on the general election ballots.

Simultaneously, all the candidates realize that veering too far from the center depreciates their chances in the general election. The red meat voraciously devoured by true believers is a poison pill. Pandering to the extremes is suicidal.

The candidates face another conundrum—Realpolitik—politics based on practical and material factors rather than on theoretical or ethical objectives. The vast majority of ordinary Democrats and Republicans want their party to win. They are not zealots. They may fervently agree with the positions staked out by one of the candidates, but won’t cast a vote in that direction.

Why? Most Americans don’t want to waste their vote. Voters are aware of the “Win-ability” factor. They realize their favorite candidate’s views or background might be perceived as too “tarnished or radical” to carry the center, and attract the Independents. Casting votes for these candidates leads the party down oblivion’s road.

These Realpolitik judgments marginalize third party candidates as well. They are generally perceived as spoilers who cripple party hegemony.

All candidates live in peril of a sea change caused by an unpredictable event. This they fear the most. In this election run, a catastrophic disruption of the oil flow from the Middle East, a major change in Iraqi behavior, irrefutable evidence of the cause of global warming, a substantial change in Wall Street’s numbers, another massive terrorist strike, or a sneak attack on Israel could undermine a candidate’s global perspective. Today’s heralded insight can quickly plummet to comic fodder on late night TV.

How many candidates in history’s scrape pile wish they hadn’t said something? All candidates are one comment away from winning or losing. An intercepted message, a miscalculated remark, a truthful observation or a revelation about friend or family can undermine a candidate’s credibility, integrity and honesty. In a nanosecond, a candidate can go from hero to hypocrite.

This is politics in America, 2007. No candidate can tell the truth and nothing but the truth and expect to be elected. It’s all about marketing, sound bites, scripts, generalities and protecting flanks.

The big money doesn’t create the winners—it follows them. Again, Realpolitik. The candidates need big money to prevail. That’s the loophole that tarnishes the outcome.

Trickle Down Taxation

Expect a lot of rancor over taxation and accusations of class warfare in the 2008 presidential contest. The left will scream that the rich should pay more taxes, that is, share a greater responsibility for helping the poor. The right will retort that higher taxes weaken the economy, which will hurt everyone. Both sides, technically speaking, are correct.

Remember supply-side economics? The proponents of this theory claim lower taxes promote new investment in business and economic growth, which indirectly benefits all. Its detractors nicknamed this theory trickle-down economics. They contend too little of this new investment actually benefits the people in the lower tiers. Both sides, technically speaking, are correct.

Rather than jumping on either bandwagon, let’s examine some misconceptions about taxation.

The biggest myth is that companies pay taxes. Of course, technically they do. Their tax liability is based on the revenues they generate by selling goods and services. But business regards taxes as overhead, much the same as the cost of energy, rent, accounting, maintenance and labor. All these costs are built into the price they charge for their products.

In effect, consumers contribute 100% of the tax dollars that companies forward to the government. Other than the fact that corporate taxes are buried in the cost of the product, they are identical to the state sales taxes retailers collect.

There is an adjutant to this masquerade. Corporate taxes can impact a company’s competitiveness in the global or local market. If a company can’t make sufficient internal productivity adjustments to turn a profit, it will move to a state offering tax incentives, manufacture off-shore, hire cheaper labor (read illegal immigrants), or incorporate off-shore.

The United States has the 2nd highest corporate taxes in the industrialized world. Combining this with the CEOs’ responsibility to their investors, explains the current trends.

In summary, nearly 100% of corporate taxes trickle down to the consumer. Corporate taxes are as regressive as excise taxes—which are essentially any indirect tax paid on goods and services. So the next time you hear any politician assert that the wealthy—businesses—aren’t paying their fair share, keep in mind who pays these taxes.

Liberals indiscriminately group taxes on wealthy businesses with the personal income taxes paid by the wealthy, including business owners. There is a big difference.

Income taxes are graduated. The taxes paid on individual incomes, by the rich and poor, are relatively fair because they are based on earned income. Although deductions can shield some of this income, the proceeds, not the taxes, trickle down in the form of government programs.

We hear conservatives complain that the top 10%, classified as wealthy, already pay 80% of the taxes. The liberals counter they should, because they control 90% of the wealth.

The former, mostly business owners have tax shelters, lobbyists, accountants, 8000 pages of tax code and trusts to shield their earnings from taxation. The latter, the middle class, actually owns the bulk of this nation’s wealth, invested in dwellings, land and stock. Again, both sides, technically speaking, are correct.

The middle class is getting its pocket picked by both ends of the political spectrum. It’s too late to build fairness into the current tax system. It’s way beyond fixing. The American taxpayers should demand a tax structure that encourages economic growth, balances the playing field and fairly distributes the tax burden. A Flat Tax, that shelters the initial income of all families, offers the most hope.

The Fairness Doctrine

The liberals’ re-introduction of the Fairness Doctrine is neither puzzling nor unexpected. Immigration is the powder cap that set off this year’s eruption. The Democrats blame the voters’ dislike of amnesty on conservative talk radio. They are now demanding a more balanced voice in this programming format through legislation.

As the topic escalates, keep in mind that the Fairness Doctrine was never law, but rather composed of the policies and guidelines of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for broadcasters. The government’s right to control content is embedded in the fact that “the public” owns the airwaves the “licensees” use.

Most of the early fairness policies were based on the “scarcity” of outlets. The rules paralleled Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937, which required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all political candidates running for office. News programs, interviews and documentaries were not bound by this law. In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court validated the FCC’s position.

During the 1980s, the “scarcity” argument became moot. The abundance of news outlets, including cable TV, the popularity of FM broadcasting, and access to the Internet opened an incredible array of vehicles for information dissemination. The FCC issued a Fairness Report in 1985, which concluded the doctrine might actually have a "chilling effect" on news reporting, and could be in “violation of the First Amendment.” The FCC stepped back.

The Democrats were not deterred by this report. Their renewed efforts to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine were vetoed by Presidents Reagan and George H. Bush. Thus, the Democrats’ current attempt to implement the Fairness Doctrine into legislation is nothing new.

It’s common knowledge that liberal radio talk programs rarely raise or sustain an audience. Why? More than likely because their viewpoints are readily available in most every newspaper, weekly magazine, on the network news broadcasts and on most cable news programs. Plus, the left’s viewpoint dominates most Internet political blogs.

Conservative talk radio's success is the natural outcome of the liberal domination of other mediums which express political viewpoints.

Way back when, some savvy marketer realized the marginalized conservative and moderate voices might rally around talk radio. They did. Sponsors flocked to its popularity. Had the liberal and conservative voices been balanced in other media, talk radio would be a “me to” offering. Balanced news reporting would dramatically shrink its impact.

Because the left sees its opinions re-enforced in 80% to 90% of the media, it is led to believe its thinking is mainstream. Were this true, most all Independents and Democrats would have supported amnesty. But 80% of the population rejected it.

The left’s fervor to cripple talk radio may cause an implosion. The Democrats see the implementation of the Fairness Doctrine as a way to squash political dissent. Americans have witnessed the subjugation of the news outlets in Third World and totalitarian societies. The leftwing of the DNC believes mainstream America is ready to follow suit. We’ll see.

The Echo of Taps and Rifles

The celebration of our Declaration of Independence from Great Britain reminds each of us of the heroes that built and protect our nation. My first encounter with a hero happened a long time ago.

Bloomington, Minnesota, was a sleepy town when I was a child, mostly farmland. My youth was blessed by an era in which you knew your neighbors, the name of the postman and milkman, and looked forward to a wave from the engineer riding the rails of the Dan Patch line.

I attended Assumption Grade School. The brick structure had eight classrooms and a general area in the basement, which included a small stage and kitchen. The parish’s school, convent, church and rectory stood side by side in that order.

Each winter a part of the playground was flooded for skating. In the spring it became a softball field. There were no organized sports, no clubs, teams, or bleachers. Pockets of friends played jump rope, tag, hop-scotch and marbles. A few played catch and keep-away.

The school’s only organized activity was for altar boys. Being an altar boy offered a special benefit beyond staying in the good graces of the nuns. We were excused from class for special religious events. Weddings were unpopular duty because they were held on Saturdays. But we loved funerals. Most included a trip to a cemetery which ate up half a school day.

Altar boys were paired by height and always served together. My partner was John Swietzer. We were teamed in the third grade—the same year the Korean War flared. Trips to the Fort Snelling National Cemetery became commonplace by the time we reached the fourth grade.

Fort Snelling sat on a bluff, surrounded by grain fields, meadows and forests. It was quiet and pristine. Even then the rows of white crosses disappeared over the hill’s crest. A short walk away, the Mendota Bridge, its feet usually shrouded in mist, spanned the Minnesota River.

A stone entrance and immaculately dressed guards met all who arrived. I don’t know why I remember it was a Friday—that day I served at the funeral I will never forget. It was a cold morning. The packed snow squeaked as we walked behind Father Covert to the burial site.

We passed groups of mourners. The sounds of Taps and the crack of rifles followed us to a flag draped coffin. It was a familiar scene. I remember about ten people, including a woman and three children. One, about my age, was wearing a plaid jacket, red stocking cap and no boots.
She was shivering so hard, I offered her my mittens. She put them on and nodded her thanks.

After the flag was folded, a soldier played Taps on another part of the grounds, a gentle way of breaking the silence, like a loon’s wail at sunset.

While the others hugged each other, the woman, flag in hand, walked over and kissed my forehead. It embarrassed me.

Father Covert must have noticed. During the ride back to school he said it was nice of me to lend my mittens to that girl. And then he explained that her mother kissed me because she couldn’t kiss the hero she had just buried.

Remember a hero on this July 4, 2007.