People who have decent jobs are experiencing some wage growth, according to The Wall Street Journal.
But there has been little recovery for the young, the less educated and those who remain unemployed.
Put another way, the rich are getting richer and the poor are, at best, only staying the same.
Seems like an ideal subject for Congress to discuss.
But the issue has no pizzazz, and politicians could not use it to raise campaign money as they do with subjects like gun control, Obamacare or abortion.
And maybe there is nothing Congress can do, though it is a historical fact that income equality tends to increase when Democrats are in power and the wealthy have a harder time when Republicans are in office.
Given the reputations of the two parties — with Democrats the supposed friend of the working person and Republicans favoring business — you would think it would be just the opposite.
But here we are, sitting on a record stock market with fewer sharing the success. Banks are swimming in money.
There are probably many reasons why public policies often produce the opposite of the results that are sought. But that isn’t the point today.
The point is that the people are growing impatient with Congress because it doesn’t seem interested in such practical bread-and-butter issues as how more of us can enjoy the good life.
If we had a functioning Congress, such issues would be discussed all the time.
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Can Pontiac handle democracy?
Turnout for Pontiac’s first bonafide election in over four years was only 13 percent but let’s take the positive view: The return of democracy to the city is off to a good start.
The city has elected a highly qualified mayor in Deirdre Waterman. If she can accomplish half of what she has led the way for at the city’s library it will be outstanding.
Outgoing Mayor Leon Jukowski deserves a hearty salute for his role in Pontiac’s necessary transformation under an emergency manager. Jukowski, since he had no real authority, could have sat on the sidelines and criticized the EM as Detroit’s Dave Bing has done, but he chose instead to support all of the EM’s unpopular decisions.
Voters often claim they want politicians to just do what is right in spite of popularity, but when they do, they suffer Jukowski’s fate at the polls.
Pontiac residents lost their democratic rights in March of 2009 after then Gov. Jennifer Granholm declared a financial emergency in the city. Fred Leeb was then named as the city’s emergency financial manager with near-dictatorial authority.
Democracy began to be restored to Pontiac in August of this year when Emergency Manager Louis Schimmel left his position.
Now the mayor and city council are back in charge, with some restrictions.
Elected officials do not have a good track record in running city government in Pontiac. The public shares the blame because it is the voters who choose the leaders.
Waterman is the city’s first woman mayor. Perhaps she can also become the city’s first successful mayor in recent memory.
The city has elected a highly qualified mayor in Deirdre Waterman. If she can accomplish half of what she has led the way for at the city’s library it will be outstanding.
Outgoing Mayor Leon Jukowski deserves a hearty salute for his role in Pontiac’s necessary transformation under an emergency manager. Jukowski, since he had no real authority, could have sat on the sidelines and criticized the EM as Detroit’s Dave Bing has done, but he chose instead to support all of the EM’s unpopular decisions.
Voters often claim they want politicians to just do what is right in spite of popularity, but when they do, they suffer Jukowski’s fate at the polls.
Pontiac residents lost their democratic rights in March of 2009 after then Gov. Jennifer Granholm declared a financial emergency in the city. Fred Leeb was then named as the city’s emergency financial manager with near-dictatorial authority.
Democracy began to be restored to Pontiac in August of this year when Emergency Manager Louis Schimmel left his position.
Now the mayor and city council are back in charge, with some restrictions.
Elected officials do not have a good track record in running city government in Pontiac. The public shares the blame because it is the voters who choose the leaders.
Waterman is the city’s first woman mayor. Perhaps she can also become the city’s first successful mayor in recent memory.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Obamacare transformational? You didn't know?
We can talk about what President Obama did or did not promise about the new health-care system. It’s here and what do we do about it now?
First of all, if the media is surprised that the Affordable Care Act is transformational then they didn’t do their job to begin with. The wealthy class knew it would equalize things and that is why it fought the changes — and continues to fight them — so strenuously.
Just because the new law is transformational doesn’t mean it’s bad. There may be better systems but the Congress didn’t adopt them.
Consider the ways in which Obamacare is transformational and then — and only then — decide whether it is good or bad and how it should be improved.
• Obamacare inches away from our third-party payment system, in which employers bear the cost of health insurance. Why is this bad? By placing all the cost on employers, employers, as a result, cut back on wages and number of people hired. Are these good things? Perhaps it is why no other industrialized country has the third-party payment system.
• ACA includes generous subsidies even for the middle class — that is, those in that class who don’t work for a large employer, perhaps employ themselves, and thus find themselves looking for their own insurance. Again, why shouldn’t these folks have access to affordable insurance?
• The new law makes everyone pay for health care. The premise is: there is no such thing as a free lunch. Yes, that’s a philosophy spawned by the evil Republicans, which begs the question as to why they are opposed to the system.
• Obamacare promotes a competitive marketplace that forces insurers to advertise for customers. And why is this bad? Suddenly, Michigan, 70 percent of whose market has heretofore been sewn up by Blue Cross Blue Shield, has 14 companies competing for your business. More choice. And what, exactly, is wrong with that?
• The upshot of the system may be less care for the wealthy (unless they pay more) and more care for the less fortunate. And this is an ungodly notion? As one informed knowledgeable observer in France said, folks in that country would never dream that the valet is entitled to less care than the president of the country.
Next time someone grouses about Obamacare, ask them what they would do? An inquire about their insurance. It’s probably pretty secure.
First of all, if the media is surprised that the Affordable Care Act is transformational then they didn’t do their job to begin with. The wealthy class knew it would equalize things and that is why it fought the changes — and continues to fight them — so strenuously.
Just because the new law is transformational doesn’t mean it’s bad. There may be better systems but the Congress didn’t adopt them.
Consider the ways in which Obamacare is transformational and then — and only then — decide whether it is good or bad and how it should be improved.
• Obamacare inches away from our third-party payment system, in which employers bear the cost of health insurance. Why is this bad? By placing all the cost on employers, employers, as a result, cut back on wages and number of people hired. Are these good things? Perhaps it is why no other industrialized country has the third-party payment system.
• ACA includes generous subsidies even for the middle class — that is, those in that class who don’t work for a large employer, perhaps employ themselves, and thus find themselves looking for their own insurance. Again, why shouldn’t these folks have access to affordable insurance?
• The new law makes everyone pay for health care. The premise is: there is no such thing as a free lunch. Yes, that’s a philosophy spawned by the evil Republicans, which begs the question as to why they are opposed to the system.
• Obamacare promotes a competitive marketplace that forces insurers to advertise for customers. And why is this bad? Suddenly, Michigan, 70 percent of whose market has heretofore been sewn up by Blue Cross Blue Shield, has 14 companies competing for your business. More choice. And what, exactly, is wrong with that?
• The upshot of the system may be less care for the wealthy (unless they pay more) and more care for the less fortunate. And this is an ungodly notion? As one informed knowledgeable observer in France said, folks in that country would never dream that the valet is entitled to less care than the president of the country.
Next time someone grouses about Obamacare, ask them what they would do? An inquire about their insurance. It’s probably pretty secure.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
The whole truth and nothing but the truth
Charles DeGaulle, in his classic book “The Edge of the Sword,” said the good leader dissembles.
Even Jesus did that.
“I have many things to say to you,” Jesus told his disciples, “but you cannot bear them now.”
Put another way, while leaders can be truthful, they don’t always tell the whole truth.
Consider the general who is sending his troops into a battle from which he knows only half will survive. What does he tell them?
This is especially true about American politicians because they are democratically elected.
If they tell the whole truth they simply don’t get elected.
Now we are finding this out about President Barack Obama.
Critics are hammering him because he told the American people that if they liked their health insurance, they could keep it. If they liked their doctor, they could keep their doctor.
This is still mostly true, but if the president had told the full truth, this is how it might have sounded:
“If you like your insurance, and it is provided by an large employer who is not cutting corners, and can afford not to cut corners, you’ll be able to keep your insurance. However, its cost to you, in the form of premiums that you help pay for, may go up. You can keep your doctor too, if your insurance company continues to include him or her in its network. And, of course, if your doctor retires or changes the nature of his or her practice, you’ll have to find another one.
“However, if you don’t have employer-provided coverage, but purchase a policy on your own, we are no longer going to encourage your insurance company to offer bare-bones coverage. You deserve better. Therefore, your insurance company may choose not to insure you, or might raise its prices, because it has to improve its coverage.
“The good news is, if you are an individual with a salary of approximately $46,000, or a couple earning about $62,000, or even a family of four earning $94,000, you may qualify for a generous government subsidy as you buy your own insurance. The end result is that you may get a better policy than you now have at a lower price.”
Now let’s face it, the above statement breaks every rule of the good sound bite. People would have tuned out the president by the time he started his second sentence.
That says a lot more about us than it does him.
It’s easy to blame the leader. But in a democratic society it should never be forgotten that we are the ones who elect our leaders.
Those who tell us more of the truth than we are prepared to bear simply don’t get elected.
Even Jesus did that.
“I have many things to say to you,” Jesus told his disciples, “but you cannot bear them now.”
Put another way, while leaders can be truthful, they don’t always tell the whole truth.
Consider the general who is sending his troops into a battle from which he knows only half will survive. What does he tell them?
This is especially true about American politicians because they are democratically elected.
If they tell the whole truth they simply don’t get elected.
Now we are finding this out about President Barack Obama.
Critics are hammering him because he told the American people that if they liked their health insurance, they could keep it. If they liked their doctor, they could keep their doctor.
This is still mostly true, but if the president had told the full truth, this is how it might have sounded:
“If you like your insurance, and it is provided by an large employer who is not cutting corners, and can afford not to cut corners, you’ll be able to keep your insurance. However, its cost to you, in the form of premiums that you help pay for, may go up. You can keep your doctor too, if your insurance company continues to include him or her in its network. And, of course, if your doctor retires or changes the nature of his or her practice, you’ll have to find another one.
“However, if you don’t have employer-provided coverage, but purchase a policy on your own, we are no longer going to encourage your insurance company to offer bare-bones coverage. You deserve better. Therefore, your insurance company may choose not to insure you, or might raise its prices, because it has to improve its coverage.
“The good news is, if you are an individual with a salary of approximately $46,000, or a couple earning about $62,000, or even a family of four earning $94,000, you may qualify for a generous government subsidy as you buy your own insurance. The end result is that you may get a better policy than you now have at a lower price.”
Now let’s face it, the above statement breaks every rule of the good sound bite. People would have tuned out the president by the time he started his second sentence.
That says a lot more about us than it does him.
It’s easy to blame the leader. But in a democratic society it should never be forgotten that we are the ones who elect our leaders.
Those who tell us more of the truth than we are prepared to bear simply don’t get elected.
Friday, October 25, 2013
How to figure your health insurance costs
Presumably the new Health Insurance Marketplace at healthcare.gov will get straightened out at some point, but until then you can use the new Get Covered Calculator released by Enroll America.
You can find out in less than a minute what coverage might cost you.
The tool provides individuals and families with realistic cost estimates for new coverage using basic information. In a clean, jargon-free interface. The calculator produces an estimated price range of what the consumer would be eligible for through their marketplace. The Get Covered Calculator uses the most up-to-date data to provide consumers an estimate of what they’re eligible for based on the state in which they live, and then connects them directly to the appropriate place for them to start the enrollment process.
The calculator is free, easy to use and doesn’t require or retain any sensitive personal information. It may tell you that you are not eligible for Obamacare subsidies and may never need to go to healthcare.gov.
But in all likelihood it will surprise you. An Oakland County couple, both aged 63 and earning combined income of $62,040 per year, would qualify for coverage costing $235 to $491 per month once their $544 monthly subsidy was figured in.
That’s a great deal and once more people discover this and their stories spread, opposition to the program may fade away.
You can find out in less than a minute what coverage might cost you.
The tool provides individuals and families with realistic cost estimates for new coverage using basic information. In a clean, jargon-free interface. The calculator produces an estimated price range of what the consumer would be eligible for through their marketplace. The Get Covered Calculator uses the most up-to-date data to provide consumers an estimate of what they’re eligible for based on the state in which they live, and then connects them directly to the appropriate place for them to start the enrollment process.
The calculator is free, easy to use and doesn’t require or retain any sensitive personal information. It may tell you that you are not eligible for Obamacare subsidies and may never need to go to healthcare.gov.
But in all likelihood it will surprise you. An Oakland County couple, both aged 63 and earning combined income of $62,040 per year, would qualify for coverage costing $235 to $491 per month once their $544 monthly subsidy was figured in.
That’s a great deal and once more people discover this and their stories spread, opposition to the program may fade away.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Focus on national debt is imperative
It may not be as exciting as railing against the evils of big business or Obamacare, but the most important issue facing the country remains the national debt.
It is not so much what it is doing to us today as what it could do to us in the future.
We have the relatively fresh examples of Greece and Cyprus before us, and some say it is silly to compare these weak, second-rate countries to the greatness of the United States.
But the principles are the same. We caught a glimpse of this in recent days as the debt ceiling issue reached its climax. Suddenly, world demand for our short-term Treasuries dropped sharply.
When the crisis comes it will come without warning, as Alan Simpson and Erksine Bowles explained in their landmark report on the national debt nearly three years ago.
Now Congress has charged itself to come up with a budget that reduces government deficits 10 years into the future. The odds of this happening are virtually non-existent, not just because of Republican tea partiers, however. The Democratic left is equally vehement. For instance, it has dug in its heals on one of the most basic elements of any deficit reduction plan, something everyone should be able to agree on, adopting the so-called chained Consumer Price Index for Social Security.
Frankly, if the nation can’t agree on this, it can’t agree on anything. That’s unfortunate, because it is the younger generation that will pay the price.
It should be remembered that just reducing annual deficits will do nothing to reduce the national debt, which on the morning of Oct. 24 was exactly $17,078,769,687,926.64. Only eliminating deficits and producing surpluses will address the national debt, which is the accumulation of all of the annual deficits.
Of course it will require both cutting spending and increasing taxes in some form to achieve the goals. But there are numerous modest proposals out there for doing so. The nonpartisan Concord Coalition is full of them.
Focusing on our national debt ought to be the top priority of our government in Washington D.C. Nothing else — not terrorism, Russia or Iran — is a greater a threat to us.
It is not so much what it is doing to us today as what it could do to us in the future.
We have the relatively fresh examples of Greece and Cyprus before us, and some say it is silly to compare these weak, second-rate countries to the greatness of the United States.
But the principles are the same. We caught a glimpse of this in recent days as the debt ceiling issue reached its climax. Suddenly, world demand for our short-term Treasuries dropped sharply.
When the crisis comes it will come without warning, as Alan Simpson and Erksine Bowles explained in their landmark report on the national debt nearly three years ago.
Now Congress has charged itself to come up with a budget that reduces government deficits 10 years into the future. The odds of this happening are virtually non-existent, not just because of Republican tea partiers, however. The Democratic left is equally vehement. For instance, it has dug in its heals on one of the most basic elements of any deficit reduction plan, something everyone should be able to agree on, adopting the so-called chained Consumer Price Index for Social Security.
Frankly, if the nation can’t agree on this, it can’t agree on anything. That’s unfortunate, because it is the younger generation that will pay the price.
It should be remembered that just reducing annual deficits will do nothing to reduce the national debt, which on the morning of Oct. 24 was exactly $17,078,769,687,926.64. Only eliminating deficits and producing surpluses will address the national debt, which is the accumulation of all of the annual deficits.
Of course it will require both cutting spending and increasing taxes in some form to achieve the goals. But there are numerous modest proposals out there for doing so. The nonpartisan Concord Coalition is full of them.
Focusing on our national debt ought to be the top priority of our government in Washington D.C. Nothing else — not terrorism, Russia or Iran — is a greater a threat to us.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Michigan Democrats spell out differences with GOP
Despite some gimmickry, four Michigan House Democrats are doing a commendable job of spelling out their differences with Republicans prior to next year’s election.
They are both simplifying the issues involved and citing specifics that define policy objectives.
It is real easy to understand what Gov. Rick Snyder and Republicans did as they took over executive and legislative branches of the government in 2011.
Basically Republicans cut taxes on businesses by about $1 billion annually and raised taxes on individuals by about the same amount through a variety of mechanisms.
By the way, they never would have let former Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm get away with it.
Most House Democrats basically want to restore tax credits aimed at individuals. They don’t say how they would make up the lost revenue for government but it is easy to see that they would likely raise taxes on businesses.
"The Republican plan to make middle-class families and seniors pay more in taxes so that corporations could pay virtually none has been a fiasco," said Rep. Jim Townsend, D-Royal Oak. "Michigan’s middle-class has never before been asked to pick up such a large portion of state taxes, and it’s important that people realize just how much more we’re paying. Not only are hard-working families working even harder just to stay afloat, the jobs Republicans promised would come after the corporate tax cuts are nowhere to be seen. The Republican plan is not working."
And that, quite simply, is the issue Michigan voters will settle next year. Do they think Michigan is better off than before Snyder and legislative Republicans took over? Do they think they themselves are better off? Those are usually the questions every election turns on.
The other three Democrats responsible for unveiling what they call the Republican Tax-O-Meter, were Jon Switalski, D-Warren, Adam Zemke, D-Ann Arbor, and Ellen Cogen Lipton, D-Huntington Woods.
"We invite everyone to learn the true cost of Michigan's enormous tax breaks to big corporations," Lipton said. "The shifting tax burden has cost Michigan families billions of dollars and it's causing real pain. It's time for Republicans to undo the tax increases on middle-class families."
Minority House Democrats have already introduced legislation to:
• Repeal the tax on senior retirement income
• Require employers to inform employees about the Earned Income Tax Credit
• Restore the Earned Income Tax Credit to 11 percent in the first year
• Restore the Homestead Property Tax Credit
• Restore the child deduction
Here is a full list of Republican-led changes that Democrats cite as pertaining to individuals:
INCOME TAX RELATED
Freeze Income Tax Rate at 4.25% effective Jan 1, 2013
Modify Public/Private Pension Exemption
Retain Military Pension Exemption
Personal Exemption TY 2012 = $3,700, indexed to inflation
Repeal Senior Interest, Dividend Exemption Age Based
Eliminate Senior & UI Special Exemptions
Eliminate Child Deduction
Eliminate Miscellaneous Subtractions
Retain Renaissance Zone Subtraction
Single Sales Apportionment Factor
Reduce 20% Refundable EITC to 6%
Modify Homestead Property Tax Credit
Modify HSPTC to Exclude Unoccupied Agricultural Property
Eliminate Adoption & Stillbirth Credits
Eliminate Non-refundable
NON-REFUNDABLE CREDIT ELIMINATIONS
City Income Tax Credit
Public Contributions Credit
Community Foundations Credit
Homeless Shelter/Food Bank Credit
Historic Preservation Credit
College Tuition Credit
Vehicle Donation Credit
Individual or Family Development Credit
They are both simplifying the issues involved and citing specifics that define policy objectives.
It is real easy to understand what Gov. Rick Snyder and Republicans did as they took over executive and legislative branches of the government in 2011.
Basically Republicans cut taxes on businesses by about $1 billion annually and raised taxes on individuals by about the same amount through a variety of mechanisms.
By the way, they never would have let former Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm get away with it.
Most House Democrats basically want to restore tax credits aimed at individuals. They don’t say how they would make up the lost revenue for government but it is easy to see that they would likely raise taxes on businesses.
"The Republican plan to make middle-class families and seniors pay more in taxes so that corporations could pay virtually none has been a fiasco," said Rep. Jim Townsend, D-Royal Oak. "Michigan’s middle-class has never before been asked to pick up such a large portion of state taxes, and it’s important that people realize just how much more we’re paying. Not only are hard-working families working even harder just to stay afloat, the jobs Republicans promised would come after the corporate tax cuts are nowhere to be seen. The Republican plan is not working."
And that, quite simply, is the issue Michigan voters will settle next year. Do they think Michigan is better off than before Snyder and legislative Republicans took over? Do they think they themselves are better off? Those are usually the questions every election turns on.
The other three Democrats responsible for unveiling what they call the Republican Tax-O-Meter, were Jon Switalski, D-Warren, Adam Zemke, D-Ann Arbor, and Ellen Cogen Lipton, D-Huntington Woods.
"We invite everyone to learn the true cost of Michigan's enormous tax breaks to big corporations," Lipton said. "The shifting tax burden has cost Michigan families billions of dollars and it's causing real pain. It's time for Republicans to undo the tax increases on middle-class families."
Minority House Democrats have already introduced legislation to:
• Repeal the tax on senior retirement income
• Require employers to inform employees about the Earned Income Tax Credit
• Restore the Earned Income Tax Credit to 11 percent in the first year
• Restore the Homestead Property Tax Credit
• Restore the child deduction
Here is a full list of Republican-led changes that Democrats cite as pertaining to individuals:
INCOME TAX RELATED
Freeze Income Tax Rate at 4.25% effective Jan 1, 2013
Modify Public/Private Pension Exemption
Retain Military Pension Exemption
Personal Exemption TY 2012 = $3,700, indexed to inflation
Repeal Senior Interest, Dividend Exemption Age Based
Eliminate Senior & UI Special Exemptions
Eliminate Child Deduction
Eliminate Miscellaneous Subtractions
Retain Renaissance Zone Subtraction
Single Sales Apportionment Factor
Reduce 20% Refundable EITC to 6%
Modify Homestead Property Tax Credit
Modify HSPTC to Exclude Unoccupied Agricultural Property
Eliminate Adoption & Stillbirth Credits
Eliminate Non-refundable
NON-REFUNDABLE CREDIT ELIMINATIONS
City Income Tax Credit
Public Contributions Credit
Community Foundations Credit
Homeless Shelter/Food Bank Credit
Historic Preservation Credit
College Tuition Credit
Vehicle Donation Credit
Individual or Family Development Credit
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)