Saturday, July 23, 2011

Sherrod Brown is at Least Sincere... at the Most a Champion of the Little Guy...

Thank you for getting in touch with me about the corporate tax code.
 
According to recent reports, certain companies have been able to operate within the law and take advantage of various loopholes and deductions to reduce their U.S. tax obligations and send jobs overseas.  It is frustrating to learn that companies making multi-billion dollar profits pay a lower tax rate than families earning $17,000 a year.
 
However, it is important to remember that what these companies are doing is legal under the tax code. That is why we need to reform the corporate tax code in a manner that simplifies the system and incentivizes the creation of jobs here at home.  If done right, corporate tax reform would broaden the tax base, increase government revenues, and reduce the deficit.
 
American workers can compete with people around the world if the federal government makes the needs of working families its priority.  However, if we fail to improve the tax code, corporations will continue to exploit the tax loopholes that help ship jobs overseas and exacerbate our nation’s fiscal situation.  
 
As the Senate considers reforms to the corporate tax code, I will be sure to keep your views in mind.  
 
Thank you for also getting in touch with me regarding proposals to reform Medicare.
    
Since the enactment of Medicare in 1965, Ohio’s seniors have no longer lived in fear of losing affordable, comprehensive health insurance when they retire.  Unfortunately, some in Congress want to dismantle Medicare in order to help offset the costs of tax cuts for the very wealthiest in our country.  I strongly oppose this proposal which is why I authored a letter (http://1.usa.gov/ka14UT)  signed by 49 of my Senate colleagues expressing our strong opposition of this plan.
 
House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan recently unveiled his chamber’s 2012 budget proposal.  This proposal would end Medicare as we know it and throw seniors into the private market with nothing more than an insufficient voucher to offset the rising cost of private health insurance.  So-called “premium support” — giving  seniors a voucher of approximately $8,000, as proposed by the Ryan budget — is a reckless and irresponsible way to address the health care needs of older Americans.  And it is an unacceptable means by which to finance tax cuts for those who are earning ten times or more than the retirement income of the average Medicare recipient.  
 
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in the first year of the voucher program under the Ryan budget, out-of-pocket expenses for seniors would double under the plan adopted by the House majority to more than $12,500 annually.  For seniors on a fixed income, a doubling of out-of-pocket expenses is simply unaffordable, particularly when the average Social Security benefit inOhio is only $14,000 per year.  Worse yet, under the proposal, the annual increase for the vouchers will fall short of the actual rate of inflation for health care — meaning out-of-pocket expenses for seniors will continue to soar.
 
To make matters worse, this budget would repeal the health care reform law that will save $1.3 trillion dollars over the next 20 years according to the CBO.   Such a repeal would also stop in its tracks the effort to close the Medicare Part D coverage gap know as the “donut hole.”  This year, seniors in the “donut hole” are receiving half off brand name prescription medication and will receive increases in the discount each year until the “donut hole” is closed in 2020.  The Ryan Budget ends this fix and would leave seniors in the “donut hole” footing the bill.  The average senior in the “donut hole” would incur an additional $11,794 between 2012 and 2020 in prescription drug costs.  Now is not the time to be adding to seniors’ financial burden.
 
While deficit reduction is essential, balancing the budget by dismantling Medicare is both unfair to hard-working Americans and counterproductive.  If Medicare is turned into a voucher system and the health reform law is dismantled, millions of seniors will be left underinsured or uninsured.  This will add to the burden on our nation’s already overwhelmed emergency rooms and result in increased demands on Medicaid as seniors exhaust their life savings.  
 
Before the passage of Medicare, only half of America’s seniors had health insurance, and most of those with insurance only had coverage for inpatient hospital costs.  Now, only 1.8 percent lack health coverage and less than 9 percent live below the poverty line. We cannot afford to reverse these gains through the ultimate form of rationing health care for seniors: the replacement of Medicare as we know it.  The cost of these “savings” — for seniors and their families and taxpayers who will have the costs shifted on to them — is far too high.   Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me.
 
Finally, thank you for getting in touch with me about Social Security reform.
 
While I understand concerns regarding the future of the program, I believe it is imperative that Social Security continues to remain strong for the well-being of our nation’s middle-class.
 
Social Security provides a vital safety net for approximately 55 million Americans, including more than 2 million Ohioans.  Reducing benefit levels or raising the retirement age for Social Security eligibility would pull the rug out from under Americans who have shaped their retirement planning around their earned Social Security benefits.  
 
The Social Security Trust Fund faces a long-term fiscal challenge that will require bipartisan dialogue.  Rather than reducing benefit levels that would cause undue financial hardship on hardworking men and women, we should seek alternatives to ensuring the solvency of the Trust Fund such as reviewing the level of the cap on taxable income.  It is also important to place Social Security in the context of our economic recovery and subsequent economic goals.  Job creation in the U.S. is crucial to stabilizing the Social Security the trust fund, which is one of many reasons our nation must review its trade and manufacturing policies to ensure we are positioned for success in the 21st century global economy.
 
I appreciate your concerns regarding this issue, and should Congress undertake legislation relating to Social Security I will certainly keep your views in mind.  
 
Thank you again for being in touch with me.
 
                         Sincerely,
              
                         Sherrod Brown
                         United States Senator

Friday, July 22, 2011

A Voice of Reason: Letter from Steve LaTourette

Thank you for contacting me about the debt ceiling debate. As you can imagine, little else is being worked on by the Congress and the President as we approach August 2nd, the date the Treasury tells us the United States will run out of cash.
The ongoing discussions have both great promise and great peril: peril, due to the impact that default by the U.S. would have on the cost of money in the future; promise because this crisis has created a once-in-a-generation chance to put the country’s economic future on a stable path. I apologize for the length of this response, however, there are a number of misconceptions about this issue and I want to be as clear as I can be.
I have recently been briefed by a number of experts about what happens if we take no action on the debt ceiling. The most informative one, to my mind, was prepared by the Bipartisan Policy Center and can be found at www.bipartisanpolicy.org. That analysis reveals that the date the U.S. runs out of cash and will be required to pay bills as money comes in is August 2nd (slides 5-6). There is no precedent for what would happen next but slide 11 indicates that the government would have to prioritize among 80 million payments. Slide 13 shows that income for August would be $172B and bills $306B for a deficit of $134B.
The severity of that situation is clearly illustrated in slides 14-19, where the Bipartisan Center lays out 2 proposed scenarios of what could be paid and what wouldn’t be paid. In addition, the credit rating agencies, Standard & Poors, et al., have indicated that a failure to pay all of our bills would result in an increase in the cost of financing the debt we already owe. Many of us who bought our first house in the 1980’s can vividly recall 15% interest rates and even a modest rise in what the U.S. pays as an interest rate can wipe out trillions in any savings a deal would achieve(slide 36).
All of which brings us to what should we do about it. Obviously, a default by the U.S. cannot be permitted. That being said, the magnitude of the debt crisis demands that a transformational solution be crafted that puts the country on a path to financial health. Some have suggested that the President simply be given an additional authority to borrow another $2Trillion without any spending cuts or revenue increases. I reject that approach.
The Speaker, John Boehner, is working with the Administration to craft what is being called the ‘big deal’. That deal would only allow additional borrowing if spending is reduced in an amount greater than the new debt. Further, through eliminating loopholes, tax simplification and broadening the base of taxpayers, revenue would be increased without the class warfare demagoguery. I support the Speaker’s work to achieve this bigger agreement, as it represents our best hope to not, again, kick this problem down the road to our kids and grandkids. Obviously, my support of any proposal will depend on the details of that proposal.
I very much appreciate you contacting me regarding this matter and as events continue to develop please feel free to share your thoughts on what you see and hear. Thankfully, the new rules of the House require that any ‘deal’ be available for 72 hours online before it comes to a vote and I welcome your thoughts when that occurs.
 
Very truly yours,
 
 
Steven C. LaTourette
Member of Congress

Monday, July 18, 2011

Congressman Ron Paul's Straight Talk

Debt Ceiling DramaPDFPrintE-mail
The debt ceiling debate is providing plenty of opportunity for political theater in Washington. Proponents of raising the debt ceiling are throwing around the usual scare tactics and misinformation in order to intimidate opponents into accepting more debt and taxes. It is important to distinguish the truth from the propaganda.
First of all, politicians need to understand that without real change default is inevitable.  In fact, default happens every day through monetary policy tricks.  Every time the Federal Reserve engages in more quantitative easing and devalues the dollar, it is defaulting on the American people by eroding their purchasing power and inflating their savings away.  The dollar has lost nearly 50% of its value against gold since 2008.  The Fed claims inflation is 2% or less over the past few years; however economists who compile alternate data show a 9% inflation rate if calculated more traditionally.  Alarmingly, the administration is talking about changing the methodology of the CPI calculation yet again to hide the damage of the government's policies. Changing the CPI will also enable the government to avoid giving seniors a COLA (cost of living adjustment) on their social security checks, and raise taxes via the hidden means of "bracket creep."  This is a default.  Just because it is a default on the people and not the banks and foreign holders of our debt does not mean it doesn't count.
Politicians also need to acknowledge that our debt is unsustainable.  For decades our government has been spending and promising far more than it collects in taxes.  But the problem is not that the people are not taxed enough.  The government has managed to run up $61.6 trillion in unfunded liabilities, which works out to $528,000 per household.  A tax policy that would aim to extract even half that amount of money from American families would be unimaginably draconian, and not unlike attempting to squeeze blood from a turnip.  This is, unequivocally, a spending problem brought about by a dramatically inflated view of the proper role of government in a free society.
Perhaps the most abhorrent bit of chicanery has been the threat that if a deal is not reached to increase the debt by August 2nd, social security checks may not go out.  In reality, the Chief Actuary of Social Security confirmed last week that current Social Security tax receipts are more than enough to cover current outlays.  The only reason those checks would not go out would be if the administration decided to spend those designated funds elsewhere.  It is very telling that the administration would rather frighten seniors dependent on social security checks than alarm their big banking friends, who have already received $5.3 trillion in bailouts, stimulus and quantitative easing.  This instance of trying to blackmail Congress into tax increases by threatening social security demonstrates how scary it is to be completely dependent on government promises and why many young people today would jump at the chance to opt out of Social Security altogether. 
We are headed for rough economic times either way, but the longer we put it off, the greater the pain will be when the system implodes.  We need to stop adding more programs and entitlements to the problem.  We need to stop expensive bombing campaigns against people on the other side of the globe and bring our troops home.  We need to stop allowing secretive banking cartels to endlessly enslave us through monetary policy trickery.  And we need to drastically rethink government's role in our lives so we can get it out of the way and get back to work. 

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Letter to Congressman and U.S. Senators


Thank you for your dedication and service to our Congressional district.  We are lucky to have someone like you as our Congressman.

As you are well aware, the budget talks are an issue of concern.

Your common sense approach has always been to seek reasonable compromise. Like cutting government programs which demonstrate little or no success, and reforming entitlement programs so they are sustainable and more importantly address the original goal and purpose. Also, please consider some fundamental changes to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.  The later was originally intended to supplement retirement income, and it has become something much different.  When Medicare and Medicaid can be delivered at a reasonable cost savings with improved levels of service, then changes should be considered.  A common goal should be to encourage family friendly behaviors, and not reward anti-social nor counter-productive actions for the individual.

Also, we should remember that tax cuts established under Reagan have been the original source of our deficit. Loop holes favoring the rich and corporations should be closed.  Let's face it, the well to do already have enough help available with the tax code. It would only make sense to eliminate excessive favoritism which is generally not shared by the vast majority of Americans.

I am available to discuss one or any of the proposals mentioned in this letter.

Your Respectful Constituent,

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Kasich's Red Herring: SB5 on Healthcare

Red Herring:   The reader's suspicions are thus misdirected, allowing the true culprit to go (temporarily at least) undetected. 

O.K.  I smelled something fishy!  Yesterday on the Morning Joe, our esteemed Governor Kasich made an appearance tauting his first six months in office.  He claimed to be a "get-it-done" type governor. After all, Kasich was elected because people did not feel Strickland was moving the state in the right direction fast enough.  Yet, when questioned about his low approval rating (most polls have him rated in the 30% positive category) , Kasich simply suggested that the polls are not accurate.

Kasich suggested that Ohio has reigned in government spending with no new taxes.  He moved on using his anti-union rhetoric against Ohio's public workers.  Interestingly enough, Kasich cited one small part of the 500 page SB 5 legislation.  He claimed that Ohio's public employees average 6% health care premiums while private sector employees pay 23%.  Kasich said everyone should pay the same amount for healthcare. Here Kasich is attempting to mislead viewers with this red herring comment:

1.  Public employees do not average 6% health care premiums.
2.  Public employees average less compensation than private counter-parts...and it is sometimes made up by favorable healthcare premiums.
3.  Instead of higher compensation, public employers have found it more cost-effective to keep health care premiums lower instead for employees.
4.  If there is an issue with premiums, public employees would be willing to sit down and NEGOTIATE a different contract.  

John Kasich successfully utilizes the red herring persuasion technique.  Instead of discussing what SB 5 really does to public employees, and the labor unions which support them, Kasich creates a false argument based on a faulty premise...  Smart...Creative... But highly inaccurate. But then again I do not think Kasich has risen to his political position by accident, and he is banking on half-truths to rule the day in his attempt to balance the state budget on the backs of Ohio's local government.

The question is, why didn't John Kasich come clean and tell viewers what SB 5 is really designed to do?



SB5 on Healthcare

Yesterday on the Morning Joe, our esteemed Governor Kasich made an appearance tauting his first six months in office.  He had claimed to be a "get-it-done" type governor. After all, Kasich was elected because people did not feel Strickland was moving the state in the right direction fast enough.  Yet, when questioned about his low approval rating (most polls have him rated in the 30% positive category) , Kasich simply suggested that the polls are not accurate.

Kasich suggested that Ohio has reigned in government spending with no new taxes.  He moved on using his anti-union rhetoric against Ohio's public workers.  Interestingly enough, Kasich cited one small part of the 500 page SB 5 legislation.  He claimed that Ohio's public employees average 6% healthcare premiums while private sector employees pay 23%.  Clearly Kasich is attempting to mislead viewers with this comment:
1.  Public employees do not average 6% healthcare premiums.
2.  



Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Koch Brothers and Their Products... Helping Them Hurts You!!!


Delegates requested information regarding the Koch Brothers and their products – there are two links provided below.
Rachel Maddow Video link contained here provides a summary http://kochwatch.org/
http://www.boycottkochbrothers.com/

Koch Products & Companies Include:
- Angel Soft
- Angel Soft Ultra
- Brawny paper towels
- Dixie cups (& napkins & plates)
- Insular cups
- Perfect Touch cups, paper products
- Quilted Northern
- Sparkle paper towels
- Stainmaster
- Vanity Fair napkins & paper towels
- Mardis Gras napkins
- Zee Napkins
- Georgia Pacific products

Home/Office papers:
- Advantage
- Image Plus
- SpectrumOther:
- Stainmaster
- Lycra
- Teflon
Building supplies:
- Georgia Pacific

- Holiday Companies <http://littlesis.org/org/74525/Holiday_Companies