Rep. Stupak thinks that citizens shouldn't have to fund abortions - even indirectly - if that goes against their religious beliefs. Fake Consultant discussed this viewpoint in his diary at LIA.
That got me thinking... how many of us actually know how our federal and state taxes are spent?
In Fake Consultant's diary, we bandied about the idea that people should be able to direct their taxes to activities they agreed with. So if you're concerned about childrens' health care, you might direct 50% of your taxes to CHIP. If you're a defense hawk, you might want 75% of your money to fund the Pentagon.
The problem with this plan is that most people have no idea how much either their state or federal government spends on anything. For instance, public opinion surveys have consistently shown that Americans believe that 15 to 20% of the federal budget goes to overseas aid. In fact, we spend 1% of the budget for programs that feed hungry children, help refugees, and support family planning programs.
What if we could see those numbers on either our regular paychecks or even annual W-2 forms?
What if you could look at those withholding numbers and see that 21 cents of every dollar withheld from your pay is used to funds defense and war spending while 2 cents of every dollar withheld funds education?
Would that change your view of government and its role in society - and in your family budget?
Charts and graphs are on the flip. They're pretty eye-opening too.
I am so confused by the Republicans these days. For years, they were all tax cuts, all the time. You knew exactly what they were going to say about taxes, without the bother of asking them: "Cut 'em!"
But now we're in a new millenium, and you don't know what the Goopers are going to do next (neither do they, but that's another post). First John McCain proposed to tax employer-provided health care.
Now Jay Love is "intrigued" by a 23% national sales tax (on top of Alabama's already-high sales tax)!
That was Jay's response when he was asked about the so-called "Fair Tax" plan, which is a tax proposal to eliminate Federal income, investment, and inheritance taxes with a single national sales tax.
Now I see why Jay likes it - it moves the whole tax burden to things like food and medicine so that things like stock options and hedge fund manager's bonuses can go untouched. Kind of the same mindset that has Handout Hank Paulson wanting the taxpayers to pay through the nose to keep Wall Street's gravy train chugging along.
OK, now I'm not confused anymore. It's just the standard conservative Bring-Back-Feudalism platform - taxes for the commoners and rents for the nobility.
That still doesn't explain why John McCain wants to tax my health benefits. I guess he just hates me...
Biden calls paying higher taxes a patriotic act WASHINGTON - Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden said Thursday that paying more in taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans. The Republican campaign for president calls the tax increases their Democratic opponents propose "painful" instead of patriotic. Under the economic plan proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, people earning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less — the vast majority of American taxpayers — would receive a tax cut. "We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people," Biden said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America." Noting that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more, Biden said: "It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."
Danny at the Political Parlor linked to these new ads from AL-02 rivals Harri Anne Smith and Jay Love. They leave no doubt that both are conservative Christians -- next ad they'll probably have crucifix lapel pins -- and taxes, the ultimate evil, are all they care about.
Harri Anne's ad:
Jay Love's ad:
I particularly like the "Nasty, negative attacks -- it's wrong!"
Check out this excerpt from a USA Today story online.
"CBS became the first old-line network to broadcast the emerging "sport" of mixed martial arts in prime time. MMAcombines punches, kicks and grappling in an activity that Sen. John McCain once compared to "human cockfighting." McCain has since backed away from that description, but he might have had it right the first time."
I confess that I do not care a whit what CBS chooses to air, nor do I mean to present a discourse on how low Americans have sunk in their choice of entertainment. No, my interest was piqued by the good Senator from Wishy-washy once again being unable to display any firmness of opinion or judgement.
This bill, sponsored by Rep. John Knight (D-Montgomery), is a great move in the right direction for Alabama, in my opinion. We pay higher taxes on food than most of the states in the union.
Food taxes are hardest on the poor, who spend a greater proportion of their wages at the grocery store than the middle and upper class do. The tax reduction also puts a little salve on the open wound of energy driven price increases. We've seen huge leaps in food prices for the past two years, with wages remaining stagnant. A tax reduction would help stabilize the hit on wages, while allowing poorer families to have something left to 'fuel the economy'.
As far as illegal immigrants paying more for food, what idiot suggested that? Illegals aren't documented, you moron. There's no way to tell they are illegal, because they don't have paperwork. You expect them to line up and say, "I'm illegal - tax me!" Or do you want people without 'papers' to be unable to buy food? What have we come to? By all means, let's have the grocery store be the next airport. Let's all line up and take off our shoes every time we buy a loaf of bread. At least you'll know who gets pedicures in town.
Or maybe they should all have a big "I" sewn to their jackets...
While we're looking at tax structures, I'd like to make an observation: if we're truly 'pro-family' in this country, I'd suggest allowing spouses, who stay home to care for their children, to make a bit more than $3400 a year and still be able to include part time wages under 'Married Head of Household' on the Federal Taxes. $3400 is a joke. It's about 1/3 of the poverty line.
We have taxed people out of the ability to raise their children, and it's time it stopped. Stay-at-home Dads and Moms should be encouraged to do that, not penalized. In fact, I think the State and the Federal Government should offer incentives, rather than higher taxes. Our society is falling apart at the seams mostly because no one can afford to raise their kids any more.
Why not take an interest in preserving the traditional family unit and reduce workforce competition at the same time?
Appropriately, biblical scholar and tax reform advocate Susan Pace Hamill made the Business section of the New York Times on Christmas Day:
Her latest effort is a book, “As Certain as Death” (Carolina Academic Press, 2007), that seeks to document how the 50 states, in contravention of her view of biblical injunctions, do more to burden the poor and relieve the rich than vice versa.
In lectures and papers, Professor Hamill has expanded on her theme, drawing objections from some critics who say that the religious obligation to care for the poor is a matter of personal morality, not public policy.
Professor Hamill asserted that 18 states seriously violate biblical principles in the way they tax and spend. She calls Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas “the sinful six” because they require the poor to pay a much larger share of their income than the rich while doing little to help the poor improve their lot.
If you can spare a few minutes, read some of Dr. Hamill's excellent writings on morals and government. Very progressive. She maintains that from a New Testament perspective, progressive taxation insures that the rich make some sacrifice for the poor. “The Bible commands that the law promote justice because human beings are not good enough to promote justice individually on their own,” she said. “To assume that voluntary charity will raise enough revenues to meet this standard is to deny the sin of greed.”
How do her critics counter that argument? Well, they basically have to drop back ten and punt, seeking support from the Old Testament:
Some of her critics, however, say that the tithes described in the Old Testament show that a flat tax, in which everyone pays the same share of their income to government, should be seen as the biblical standard.
There's nothing wrong with the Old Testament, of course, but last time I looked, the teachings of Jesus were not included in that part of the Bible. I guess that means everyone who is guided by "What would Jesus do?" should forget about the flat tax (I think that covers the so-called Fair Tax, too) and get on board the movement for a more progressive tax structure in Alabama and across the country.
Yes, you may personally pay a little more in taxes if those tax cuts for the rich are rolled back. Consider it a sign that you're doing well, so it's time to do some good. Ask yourself, WWJD?
Susan Pace Hamill is, or at least ought to be considered, an Alabama treasure. Listen to her talking about sacrifice, taxes, fairness and greed. If you are a progressive Alabamian, struggling to find the words to refute right wing talking points that you know in your heart are just plain wrong, pay attention to the way she takes those talking points apart. This is from the Over The Mountain DemocratsOct.8 forum at Samford University.
