The Republican Watch (Num. 1, Vol. I)
A new series I've decided to start, to keep an eye on those sneaky bastards in the majority down in D.C. It'd be nice if I could do this weekly, but I won't, so I won't bother promising that.
#1: Social Security Reform
Bush had a speech last night. I didn't watch (I didn't even know it was on) but I read about it this afternoon in the paper. Basically, his plan to make Social Security solvent (maintaining at least a break-even cash flow) is to tie benefits for the "higher earners" to inflation rather than to wages, which generally rise faster than the former. Experts believe this will make up for about 70% of the shortfall. However, this is not acceptable.
The first issue is the definition of "higher earners." Bush says that everyone making more than $20,000 a year has benefits cut. This is more than 70% of the population. The problem created here is that the extremely poor maintain decent benefits, and the wealthy don't need the benefits since they have pensions and stocks and whatnot...but what of the middle class? They get less of a check each month but don't have any means to cover up their losses. Therefore, once again, the Bush administration has shafted the middle class.
A much better solution (but one many Republicans are adamantly opposed to) is to raise/eliminate the payroll cap on social security taxes. Currently, any money a person earns over $90,000 a year is not taxed by social security. This is pissantic (a word?). Why should people earning larger amounts of money be exempt from paying taxes? Does it not follow that the poor, who need every penny the get, should be exempt, if anyone at all? The income tax system has taxed the rich more heavily than the poor for years, and it has worked out fine - the upper income brackets have not collapsed (more on that later). Eliminate the payroll cap and we'll fix the social security deficit without lowering benefits!
Oh, and private accounts defeat the entire purpose of social security. There is no "security" in the stock market, and most Americans realize that, and oppose Bush's plan.
#2: Filibuster Busters
So this pisses me off. The Democrats managed to defeat seven of Bush's nominees for judicial appointments in his first term (these guys are crazy, by the way). So what does Bush do? He re-nominates them in his second term. Not since FDR tried to stack the judiciary has a President so blatantly disregarded unwritten law (not the band) on judicial issues. Furthermore, the Christian Right Republicans have seized on Bush's move to try to beat down the filibuster law in time for Rehnquist to keel over and be replaced. And since the leader of the Republicans in the Senate (Bill Frist) is one of them, they've had no trouble pushing the issue. The problem they have is that it takes 60 votes to defeat a filibuster, and the Republicans only have 54 members in the Senate. A successful filibuster manages to run the time down on an issue to avoid bringing it to a vote, at which point it is dismissed. This is how it has been done since the 1st Congress. If they succeed in doing this, the Democrats have threatened to shut down the Senate and stop it from functioning. Otherwise, the Republicans will be able to ram through anything they wish.
#3: Tax Breaks For The Rich
This isn't exactly topical, but I found it interesting and decided to mention it. Crazy brackets "{ }" denote my additions. From Molly Ivins' column:
"The Tax Justice Network recently reported that the world's richest individuals have plaed $11.5 trillion {the US budget for 2005 was $2.57 trillion} in assets in offshore tax havens to avoid paying taxes, a sum 10 times the GDP of Britain. The most authoritative study yet done shows that rich people clip $860 billion in coupons a year off this money.
"'Governments appear unable, or unwilling, to prevent the rich [from] employing aggressive strategies to minimize their tax liabilities,' said the Observer of Britain. We can emphasize the 'unwilling' with this administration."
I just found that sum to be staggering. I mean, honestly, what can you do with that kind of cash?
#1: Social Security Reform
Bush had a speech last night. I didn't watch (I didn't even know it was on) but I read about it this afternoon in the paper. Basically, his plan to make Social Security solvent (maintaining at least a break-even cash flow) is to tie benefits for the "higher earners" to inflation rather than to wages, which generally rise faster than the former. Experts believe this will make up for about 70% of the shortfall. However, this is not acceptable.
The first issue is the definition of "higher earners." Bush says that everyone making more than $20,000 a year has benefits cut. This is more than 70% of the population. The problem created here is that the extremely poor maintain decent benefits, and the wealthy don't need the benefits since they have pensions and stocks and whatnot...but what of the middle class? They get less of a check each month but don't have any means to cover up their losses. Therefore, once again, the Bush administration has shafted the middle class.
A much better solution (but one many Republicans are adamantly opposed to) is to raise/eliminate the payroll cap on social security taxes. Currently, any money a person earns over $90,000 a year is not taxed by social security. This is pissantic (a word?). Why should people earning larger amounts of money be exempt from paying taxes? Does it not follow that the poor, who need every penny the get, should be exempt, if anyone at all? The income tax system has taxed the rich more heavily than the poor for years, and it has worked out fine - the upper income brackets have not collapsed (more on that later). Eliminate the payroll cap and we'll fix the social security deficit without lowering benefits!
Oh, and private accounts defeat the entire purpose of social security. There is no "security" in the stock market, and most Americans realize that, and oppose Bush's plan.
#2: Filibuster Busters
So this pisses me off. The Democrats managed to defeat seven of Bush's nominees for judicial appointments in his first term (these guys are crazy, by the way). So what does Bush do? He re-nominates them in his second term. Not since FDR tried to stack the judiciary has a President so blatantly disregarded unwritten law (not the band) on judicial issues. Furthermore, the Christian Right Republicans have seized on Bush's move to try to beat down the filibuster law in time for Rehnquist to keel over and be replaced. And since the leader of the Republicans in the Senate (Bill Frist) is one of them, they've had no trouble pushing the issue. The problem they have is that it takes 60 votes to defeat a filibuster, and the Republicans only have 54 members in the Senate. A successful filibuster manages to run the time down on an issue to avoid bringing it to a vote, at which point it is dismissed. This is how it has been done since the 1st Congress. If they succeed in doing this, the Democrats have threatened to shut down the Senate and stop it from functioning. Otherwise, the Republicans will be able to ram through anything they wish.
#3: Tax Breaks For The Rich
This isn't exactly topical, but I found it interesting and decided to mention it. Crazy brackets "{ }" denote my additions. From Molly Ivins' column:
"The Tax Justice Network recently reported that the world's richest individuals have plaed $11.5 trillion {the US budget for 2005 was $2.57 trillion} in assets in offshore tax havens to avoid paying taxes, a sum 10 times the GDP of Britain. The most authoritative study yet done shows that rich people clip $860 billion in coupons a year off this money.
"'Governments appear unable, or unwilling, to prevent the rich [from] employing aggressive strategies to minimize their tax liabilities,' said the Observer of Britain. We can emphasize the 'unwilling' with this administration."
I just found that sum to be staggering. I mean, honestly, what can you do with that kind of cash?
posted by Jimmy at 3:02 AM
<< Home