A letter to President Obama

Dear Mr. President,

On November 6, 2012 you made history and I helped you, as I did in 2008. But this time I expect more. 

I don't want to see a grand bargain that includes you selling out the people who elected you. The election really was a clear choice and voters said, we want a government that helps us up, rather than shuts us out.

I voted for you because you are supposed to support and defend the things Democrats believe in, like Pell Grants, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. You are supposed to keep our environment clean and safe from people who want to pollute it for profit.

Now is your time to prove that you will not bend to the will of the losing party. America does indeed want to move forward.

So, Mr. President, stick to your guns and break the gridlock because the best way to tame a spoiled child is to simply say no.

• ·       No to cuts in Social Security and the chained CPI index.

• ·       No to education cuts.

• ·       No to Medicare and Medicaid cuts

• ·       No to more tax cuts for the rich

And most importantly, say no to John Boehner and his Tea Party caucus. Just because they refuse to listen to the voice of voters doesn't mean you should go along for the ride.

Image: Wiki file

Breaking gridlock: How about term limits for all Washington lawmakers?

America has term limits for the office of the president, governors and a plethora of local offices. However, the Congress and Senate have escaped the boundaries of term limits. The ability to spend a literal lifetime in the US Senate and Congress may be at the heart of the recent legislative paralysis that has crippled the US government. If all politicians knew they were out after two terms, perhaps they would spend less time electioneering and more time governing.

Fighting among lawmakers in Washington has produced frustration for the electorate and both the democratic and republican parties.  Moreover, infighting has bought the legislative process to a screeching halt. Jockeying for position on powerful committees has kept senior members of the House and Senate focused on reelection for control of key committees, because that is where the true power lies.

Now take the same picture and remove career politicians. For one thing, lobbyists would have to change their strategy. It would cost them a lot more money to fund an unknown candidate, every two years for Congress and six years for the Senate. With new lawmakers being part of the rule instead of the exception, deeply entrenched power-brokers would be forced to give up their powerful seats on everything from the Armed Services 

Committee, to budget and commerce committees. And the list goes on.

The advantage to voters is not only faster changes in a notoriously slow legislative body, but it may put a dent in the corruption process.

Change is what Americans vote for when the country is heading down the wrong path. However, change brings false hope when elections merely exchange one well funded career politician for another with little more than a different name or party label.

While not the ultimate solution, term limits for every elected office in the Unites States would take America a long way toward weeding out career politicians who have grown too comfortable in their deep seats of power. It would also bring American government closer to the design of the country’s founders.
 

Obama considers fight against republican supply side economics with tax loophole reform

Today on Morning Joe, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell said, “Remember what supply-side economics is. It is the promise that by cutting taxes, the treasury is going to collect more revenue because the economy will be so wildly stimulated by cutting taxes...But by cutting these taxes the treasury is going to collect less money.”

Mr. O’Donnell’s remarks may be the most honest, realistic words ever spoken about tax cut policy. According to the New York Times, "he tax benefits will flow most heavily to the highest earners, just as the original cuts did when they were passed in 2001 and 2003. At least a quarter of the tax savings will go to the wealthiest 1 percent of the population."

A UPI report said there is no evidence that shows supply side economics trickles down to anyone. Additional reports on MSNBC support that data. Essentially, when the wealthy get money they save it, when the middle class and poor get money they spend it. Therefore, the basis for the republican argument that tax cuts for the rich will create jobs has no substance. The republican tax deal will force and additional $900 billion dollars in debt on 100% of the American people, yet it will benefit only 2%.

At a recent press conference, President Obama said that the battle over the deficit and tax policy is a long term endeavor.  According to the New York Times, the Obama Administration is considering an overhaul of allowable tax deductions that would raise revenue by closing loopholes. “The objective is to rid the code of its complex buildup of deductions, credits and exemptions, thereby broadening the base of taxes collected and allowing for lower rates.”

How far President Obama will get with an uncooperative republican leadership is unclear. However if lawmakers on both side of the isle are committed to reducing the deficit, the logical place to begin is to reform the tax code.

Image via Wikipedia

GOP tax cut plan: Redistribution of wealth to the rich?

Throughout the current recession, those hurt the least have been the super rich. They are also the primary beneficiaries of the GOP tax cut deal with President Obama.

If America had a budget surplus the tax package might not be facing opposition. However, with the balance sheet nearly $14 trillion on the red, the United States budget deficit is at the center of this debate.

The Bush tax cuts, as all tax code manipulation, are a form of redistribution of wealth. Whether the discounts go to the rich or poor does not change the mechanics. The portion of the Obama tax bill compromise that applies to the rich will cost taxpayers $420 billion. Since the wealthy will be paying less, (percentage-wise) it is essentially a subsidy from the middle class and poor into the pockets of the rich.

Consensus among democrats and the American public according to a recent CBS News poll, says on the republican tax cut deal is not what the electorate wants; it’s bad for the country, will not create jobs, and will add more to the deficit than it’s worth.

Republicans have been conspicuously silent on the simplest solution to the tax cut debate, which is to pass the bill without the portion that applies to the top tax brackets.

The GOP refusal to cooperate has been called a form of hostage taking by opponents to the bill, including President Obama. Political commentators have hotly debated the pros and cons of the legislation, but few have called the bill what it actually is; a redistribution of wealth that favors multi-millionaires.

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell said, “Remember what supply-side economics is. It is the promise that by cutting taxes, the treasury is going to collect more revenue because the economy will be so wildly stimulated by cutting taxes...But by cutting these taxes the treasury is going to collect less money…”

Mr. O’Donnell’s remarks are probably the most honest, realistic words ever spoken about  tax cut policy.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy