In light of the current debate about tax reform, I believe the first step in that reform is changing the way we assess our citizens' income taxes on their hard-earned wages. The balance is to not punish those in society who have been successful in this capitalistic system while not shifting the burden of tax payments on the working class. In other words, fairness.
Currently, there is a push to tax the wealthiest Americans, that is those who make more than $1 million a year in adjusted gross income, at a rate of 30 percent. While in this battle between the haves and the have-nots, that seems fair and appeals to our populist nature, it does give the impression that our government, who has historically benefited from the successes of the captains of industry, now want to put a damper on those financial achievements.
In Mississippi, we tax our citizens' income in this manner: The first $5000 is assessed at 3 percent, the second $5000 at 4 percent and the remainder at 5 percent. That means basically every worker in Mississippi is paying taxes in all three tax brackets. It is lower than the current Federal rate and could be replicated at the Federal level, but it would be a significant decrease in revenue to operate the national government.
Here is my radical idea, based on the 2010 national adjusted gross income for the United States, which was around $8.3 trillion: I believe that there should only be three tax brackets, and corresponding rates, for generating tax revenue. The first bracket should consist of all incomes below $50,000 and should be taxed at a rate of 7 percent; the second bracket should consist of all incomes between $50,000 and $99,999.99 and should be taxed at a rate of 12 percent; and the third bracket should consist of incomes from $100,000 and over and should be taxed at a rate of 15 percent.
Based on that $8.3 trillion gross income figure, this bracket system will generate over $1.032 trillion in income tax revenues. That would be a reduction of $131 billion in tax revenue collections compared to last year, but if my previous idea is enacted dealing with reforming Medicaid, the Medicaid savings would be greater than the loss of revenue in the new tax plan.
For those who think this would be a regressive tax on those with lower incomes, let me make this argument: the average median income in the United States is around $45,000 or $3750 a month; in the present tax structure, the monthly Federal income tax withholding on $3750 a month is around $405. If my idea is adopted, the monthly withholding would decrease to around $263, a savings of $142. I know I could use an additional $142 a month in my pocket, and so would every American taxpayer.
Ever since the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified in 1913 (Mississippi was the 5th State to ratify the amendment in March of 1910), fairness in taxation has been an issue. This is my radical idea to address that age-old concern. As always in the legislative process, there is still more work to do in dealing with restructuring the tax code to address standard deductions and so forth, but I contend that in order to have those discussions, this issue has to have consensus first.
For too long we, in America, have treated fairness like beauty, it is truly in the eyes of the beholder. To me, fairness should never be subjective, it should be a universal standard, and I think this idea leads us toward that goal.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
Radical Idea #1: Changing Medicaid
Having been a candidate for the United States Senate, my thought process has been focused more at a national level than a local one for quite some time. Although I totally base my national thought process on how it would improve the lives of the people in my adopted home state of Mississippi, it is a national thought process nonetheless.
Upon expressing that, I also believe that the country that I live in has gotten into a rut concerning radical political policy. We have truly become a country of political cowards, deeming every man-made policy as a sacred institution, that whenever some think about changing the way we do things, those individuals are treated as heretics or blasphemers.
Well, since I am not a candidate on any ballot in the year 2012, I have nothing to lose by expressing my thoughts about radical changes that need to be made to make my country great again. My reputation in the Mississippi Legislature was to introduce legislation to provoke thoughtful discussion and hopefully change policy for the betterment of the people I served. It is in that sense of self-made tradition that I offer this suggestion.
Medicaid was instituted in 1965 to provide medical aid to a limited number of low-income Americans receiving government financial assistance. In 2010, the cost to the Federal Government to operate this noble endeavor was $275 billion. With increasing medical costs, this program could basically take up half of the Federal budget over the next ten generations. That thought alone makes the current way we deliver Medicaid cost prohibitive in the long term.
I say let's do something radically different with the way we allocate Medicaid dollars. Instead of Medicaid being essentially a medical insurance policy for impoverished Americans, let it become a grant program for those same Americans to get quality, private health insurance. If the recent health care reform law survives the Supreme Court's constitutional review, it will be a requirement for every American to have health insurance by 2014. Why not make Medicaid the delivery system to make that happen?
For what we are paying now for some 45 million Americans to have complete annual health care access, we can pay a $183 monthly premium for every American for five months. Thus if we applied that same monthly premium payment for those same 45 million Americans for a year, it would only be $99 billion, a savings of almost $175 billion. The $183 monthly premium number is the average Americans paid for individual health insurance in 2011. The average deductible was around $2500.
Now the critics will say that insurance companies will not want to insure these individuals because of the propensity for increased payouts. My argument is that health insurance will always have a greater propensity for payouts compared to life, auto or property insurance regardless of the clientele because of the nature of the insurance. Everybody wants to be healthy, therefore they will do what is necessary to be that way, which means going to the doctor when they are not feeling well.
The way the system is setup now, people run to the emergency room when things become a crisis, there is no incentive for preventive care and the majority of Americans cannot identify a family physician when asked. Private insurers offer those wellness incentives with their policies.
The specifics for cost controls within the new Medicaid program could be legislated, but they do not have to go any further than within the current program. Currently, several states offer Medicaid/SCHIP-funded premium assistance programs already. My contention is that the premium assistance program should be the primary focus of the new Medicaid program I am suggesting.
This will help states trim down or totally eliminate their Medicaid burden, which is essentially a Federal tax assessed on the states in the form of matching funds, thus freeing up their respective budgets. And if the states have more money, then taxes do not have to be raised to cover these increasing costs and maybe they might put more money in other programs, say like education for example.
Also, with the insurance companies having more skin in the game, so to speak, then the private industry of insurance can challenge the private industry of health care to deal with controlling the cost of health care and pharmaceuticals without the immediate threat of the government clamping down on the free market system as it relates to health care.
There will be those in the social justice community that will state this places an undue burden of the poor. That argument is hallow in light of the fact that the President they supported mandated that everyone must have health insurance and it is unrealistic in these political and economic climates to expect any elected official to just raise taxes to pay for a service that rises quicker than any pay raise or tax increase, or the rate of inflation for that matter.
This radical idea stays within the Preamble of the US Constitution in regards to promoting the general welfare, but it adds that dimension of individual responsibility that is needed for a society, and the very basic unit of that society, the family, to survive.
Again, this is my radical idea. Every idea I have heard so far basically cuts out the families that are already under the system and does not create the environment for thorough discussion, let alone consensus, of controlling the cost of health care. This one, I believe, relieves the pressure of the Medicaid program on the Federal and the respective states' budgets while providing a much needed program to the citizens of this great nation.
I am sure I am not the only one who has thought about this but I am putting it out there. Maybe, as it was when I was in the Mississippi House of Representatives, this will get people talking about it and, more importantly, doing something about it. Because that is what enabling public policy is all about.
Upon expressing that, I also believe that the country that I live in has gotten into a rut concerning radical political policy. We have truly become a country of political cowards, deeming every man-made policy as a sacred institution, that whenever some think about changing the way we do things, those individuals are treated as heretics or blasphemers.
Well, since I am not a candidate on any ballot in the year 2012, I have nothing to lose by expressing my thoughts about radical changes that need to be made to make my country great again. My reputation in the Mississippi Legislature was to introduce legislation to provoke thoughtful discussion and hopefully change policy for the betterment of the people I served. It is in that sense of self-made tradition that I offer this suggestion.
Medicaid was instituted in 1965 to provide medical aid to a limited number of low-income Americans receiving government financial assistance. In 2010, the cost to the Federal Government to operate this noble endeavor was $275 billion. With increasing medical costs, this program could basically take up half of the Federal budget over the next ten generations. That thought alone makes the current way we deliver Medicaid cost prohibitive in the long term.
I say let's do something radically different with the way we allocate Medicaid dollars. Instead of Medicaid being essentially a medical insurance policy for impoverished Americans, let it become a grant program for those same Americans to get quality, private health insurance. If the recent health care reform law survives the Supreme Court's constitutional review, it will be a requirement for every American to have health insurance by 2014. Why not make Medicaid the delivery system to make that happen?
For what we are paying now for some 45 million Americans to have complete annual health care access, we can pay a $183 monthly premium for every American for five months. Thus if we applied that same monthly premium payment for those same 45 million Americans for a year, it would only be $99 billion, a savings of almost $175 billion. The $183 monthly premium number is the average Americans paid for individual health insurance in 2011. The average deductible was around $2500.
Now the critics will say that insurance companies will not want to insure these individuals because of the propensity for increased payouts. My argument is that health insurance will always have a greater propensity for payouts compared to life, auto or property insurance regardless of the clientele because of the nature of the insurance. Everybody wants to be healthy, therefore they will do what is necessary to be that way, which means going to the doctor when they are not feeling well.
The way the system is setup now, people run to the emergency room when things become a crisis, there is no incentive for preventive care and the majority of Americans cannot identify a family physician when asked. Private insurers offer those wellness incentives with their policies.
The specifics for cost controls within the new Medicaid program could be legislated, but they do not have to go any further than within the current program. Currently, several states offer Medicaid/SCHIP-funded premium assistance programs already. My contention is that the premium assistance program should be the primary focus of the new Medicaid program I am suggesting.
This will help states trim down or totally eliminate their Medicaid burden, which is essentially a Federal tax assessed on the states in the form of matching funds, thus freeing up their respective budgets. And if the states have more money, then taxes do not have to be raised to cover these increasing costs and maybe they might put more money in other programs, say like education for example.
Also, with the insurance companies having more skin in the game, so to speak, then the private industry of insurance can challenge the private industry of health care to deal with controlling the cost of health care and pharmaceuticals without the immediate threat of the government clamping down on the free market system as it relates to health care.
There will be those in the social justice community that will state this places an undue burden of the poor. That argument is hallow in light of the fact that the President they supported mandated that everyone must have health insurance and it is unrealistic in these political and economic climates to expect any elected official to just raise taxes to pay for a service that rises quicker than any pay raise or tax increase, or the rate of inflation for that matter.
This radical idea stays within the Preamble of the US Constitution in regards to promoting the general welfare, but it adds that dimension of individual responsibility that is needed for a society, and the very basic unit of that society, the family, to survive.
Again, this is my radical idea. Every idea I have heard so far basically cuts out the families that are already under the system and does not create the environment for thorough discussion, let alone consensus, of controlling the cost of health care. This one, I believe, relieves the pressure of the Medicaid program on the Federal and the respective states' budgets while providing a much needed program to the citizens of this great nation.
I am sure I am not the only one who has thought about this but I am putting it out there. Maybe, as it was when I was in the Mississippi House of Representatives, this will get people talking about it and, more importantly, doing something about it. Because that is what enabling public policy is all about.
Monday, January 16, 2012
How Dr. King inspired me
I remember in 3rd grade, I first heard the famous refrain from the "I Have A Dream" speech. As a child, I believed that anything was possible, including a world where the content of one's character was more important than one's appearance. I was optimistic for a better world even though I did not know how bad the world I lived in was.
I never experienced racism as a child in Chicago, although I lived in a segregated society. When it was time for me to ride the bus, I could sit wherever I wanted. When I went to a store, I did not have to enter in the rear entrance. When it was time for me to register to vote, I had no problems doing so. When I found out that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the author of that great sermon, was one of the driving forces to make those things possible, I was inspired.
As an ardent student of Black History, it appalled me that American citizens were denied these basic rights because of the way God made them. Therefore, as I read about the struggles of the Civil Rights Movement and how Dr. King, using tactics from Gandhi and guided by his Christian theology, became the inspirational leader of that movement, I was motivated to follow the calling God placed in me.
That calling was politics. I believed that through public service, I could contribute to making "The Dream" a reality for all of America's citizens. Economic opportunity, personal advancement, peaceful co-existence, those were the goals of the movement and of Dr. King. I adopted those goals as well, and did my dead-level best to create legislation that allowed those things to come to fruition.
My inspiration was fueled by an internal passion to do well, but it was guided by a very simple principle Dr. King stated, "A man who has nothing to die for, is not fit to live." I took it as a challenge personally to do all that I could to do what needed to be done.
I am a better person because of Dr. King. Hopefully, when my life is over in this realm, I will hear the words, "Well done, my good and faithful servant." When I hear that, then I know that I lived up to the expectations Dr. King believed all of us could achieve as children of God.
I never experienced racism as a child in Chicago, although I lived in a segregated society. When it was time for me to ride the bus, I could sit wherever I wanted. When I went to a store, I did not have to enter in the rear entrance. When it was time for me to register to vote, I had no problems doing so. When I found out that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the author of that great sermon, was one of the driving forces to make those things possible, I was inspired.
As an ardent student of Black History, it appalled me that American citizens were denied these basic rights because of the way God made them. Therefore, as I read about the struggles of the Civil Rights Movement and how Dr. King, using tactics from Gandhi and guided by his Christian theology, became the inspirational leader of that movement, I was motivated to follow the calling God placed in me.
That calling was politics. I believed that through public service, I could contribute to making "The Dream" a reality for all of America's citizens. Economic opportunity, personal advancement, peaceful co-existence, those were the goals of the movement and of Dr. King. I adopted those goals as well, and did my dead-level best to create legislation that allowed those things to come to fruition.
My inspiration was fueled by an internal passion to do well, but it was guided by a very simple principle Dr. King stated, "A man who has nothing to die for, is not fit to live." I took it as a challenge personally to do all that I could to do what needed to be done.
I am a better person because of Dr. King. Hopefully, when my life is over in this realm, I will hear the words, "Well done, my good and faithful servant." When I hear that, then I know that I lived up to the expectations Dr. King believed all of us could achieve as children of God.
Monday, December 26, 2011
I am recovering..
Watching the current rhetorical dance that Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is doing concerning a newsletter he lent his name to, I started thinking about my own experience.
Now Paul can categorically deny his racist tendencies, that is his right and his internal struggle to deal with. As for me, I came to terms with it a long time ago. When I was 12, the television show Roots came on and it was an eye-opening experience.
After watching the mini-series, my mom turned off the TV and asked me how did I feel. My response was that I hated white people. Needless to say, my parents were stunned by my frankness, especially at that age. They had never expressed any animosity towards white Americans in my presence. Yet they clearly understood how I drew that conclusion.
While growing up in Chicago, I lived in a segregated environment: school, church, social activities, etc. There was no need to interact with whites other than at the bank or shopping downtown. We even had our own cultural parade we could participate in just before school started in the fall.
I had the opportunity to attend Princeton, but I chose Jackson State, one because of economics and two, because of cultural comfort. But it was my experience at a historically Black university that actually exposed me to the relationships that shaped my more progressive views on race relations.
I was exposed to segregationist rhetoric from a Black perspective and I honestly did not feel comfortable with it, primarily because I did not pragmatically see how that mindset was beneficial.
It was my involvement with politics that created the relationships I developed which turned me from a racist to a well-balanced human being. It was my involvement with the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod that opened the door to a world I had never fully immersed myself in.
That combination came into my life at the age of 18 and literally change my life for the better. I admit I am not a expert of white American culture, especially in the South, but I am sensitive to their concerns and values. I have tried to do my best to offer knowledge to my white friends and colleagues about African-American experiences in return.
As I further gained spiritual awareness and a better relationship with God, my tolerance and understanding of other cultures greatly improved. I learned how to disapprove or disagree without being discriminatory.
But the key to this evolution was to acknowledge that I am a recovering racist. You cannot solve a problem until you accept that you have a problem. I think that is what Rep. Paul's dilemma is.
Maybe it is more political expediency that explains his deniability rather than a character flaw, but it is not to say that it is acceptable. It is definitely not presidential. It is my hope that Mr. Paul comes to grips with his issue. I am grateful that I dealt with mine.
Now Paul can categorically deny his racist tendencies, that is his right and his internal struggle to deal with. As for me, I came to terms with it a long time ago. When I was 12, the television show Roots came on and it was an eye-opening experience.
After watching the mini-series, my mom turned off the TV and asked me how did I feel. My response was that I hated white people. Needless to say, my parents were stunned by my frankness, especially at that age. They had never expressed any animosity towards white Americans in my presence. Yet they clearly understood how I drew that conclusion.
While growing up in Chicago, I lived in a segregated environment: school, church, social activities, etc. There was no need to interact with whites other than at the bank or shopping downtown. We even had our own cultural parade we could participate in just before school started in the fall.
I had the opportunity to attend Princeton, but I chose Jackson State, one because of economics and two, because of cultural comfort. But it was my experience at a historically Black university that actually exposed me to the relationships that shaped my more progressive views on race relations.
I was exposed to segregationist rhetoric from a Black perspective and I honestly did not feel comfortable with it, primarily because I did not pragmatically see how that mindset was beneficial.
It was my involvement with politics that created the relationships I developed which turned me from a racist to a well-balanced human being. It was my involvement with the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod that opened the door to a world I had never fully immersed myself in.
That combination came into my life at the age of 18 and literally change my life for the better. I admit I am not a expert of white American culture, especially in the South, but I am sensitive to their concerns and values. I have tried to do my best to offer knowledge to my white friends and colleagues about African-American experiences in return.
As I further gained spiritual awareness and a better relationship with God, my tolerance and understanding of other cultures greatly improved. I learned how to disapprove or disagree without being discriminatory.
But the key to this evolution was to acknowledge that I am a recovering racist. You cannot solve a problem until you accept that you have a problem. I think that is what Rep. Paul's dilemma is.
Maybe it is more political expediency that explains his deniability rather than a character flaw, but it is not to say that it is acceptable. It is definitely not presidential. It is my hope that Mr. Paul comes to grips with his issue. I am grateful that I dealt with mine.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
A Lesson in Accountability
Joe Paterno was an American icon. He was in line to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He is the winningest coach in FBS College Football. He stayed at one institution, Pennsylvania State University, one of our nation's first land grant colleges, for over 60 years, 46 as head coach. It is a level of consistency that will be hard to duplicate in our lifetime.
So how is it that a man, who grew up in the same generation as my parents, with that kind of dedication and sense of value, let a person like Jerry Sandusky get away with such a heinous act of human behavior. Maybe he believed that telling Sandusky that he would never become the next head coach at Penn State and Sandusky's subsequent resignation would have squashed it. Maybe he felt he had done enough. If that was the case, he was wrong.
It is one thing to be second-guessed after a football game, and another after the revelation of criminal activity. Joe Pa should have done more than just giving Sandusky a reason to leave Penn State. He should have made sure that the Attorney General of Pennsylvania knew that there was a potential pedophile on his staff and let the authorities take the responsibility of prosecuting him or not. He should not have kept that in the closet, thus promoting the discussion that college football is a closed society, exempt from the rules of the society-at-large.
To his credit, Coach Paterno tendered his resignation for the end of the season. He realized he had made a grave mistake and was willing to pay the price for it. But he should have resigned effective immediately and issued a stronger statement about intolerance for child abuse, sexual or otherwise. Paterno has molded the lives of hundreds of young men in a positive manner. Unfortunately, for those young men who were victims of Mr. Sandusky's actions, Paterno, due to his previous inaction, has adversely affected their lives as well.
Evil is evil and we as human beings have a commitment to stop it. Whether you believe in a God or not, you should know enough to see wrong-doing and act to change or stop it. We are all short of perfection, but that does not mean we allow predators of human beings to roam free. Joe Pa should have turned in Sandusky, plain and simple.
Now an incredible legacy is stained as the Roman Catholic Church was stained. The lesson to be learned is that once you accept accountability you can then move forward. The church has moved forward and is regaining the trust of its parishioners. Now it is Penn State's, and Paterno's, turn.
So how is it that a man, who grew up in the same generation as my parents, with that kind of dedication and sense of value, let a person like Jerry Sandusky get away with such a heinous act of human behavior. Maybe he believed that telling Sandusky that he would never become the next head coach at Penn State and Sandusky's subsequent resignation would have squashed it. Maybe he felt he had done enough. If that was the case, he was wrong.
It is one thing to be second-guessed after a football game, and another after the revelation of criminal activity. Joe Pa should have done more than just giving Sandusky a reason to leave Penn State. He should have made sure that the Attorney General of Pennsylvania knew that there was a potential pedophile on his staff and let the authorities take the responsibility of prosecuting him or not. He should not have kept that in the closet, thus promoting the discussion that college football is a closed society, exempt from the rules of the society-at-large.
To his credit, Coach Paterno tendered his resignation for the end of the season. He realized he had made a grave mistake and was willing to pay the price for it. But he should have resigned effective immediately and issued a stronger statement about intolerance for child abuse, sexual or otherwise. Paterno has molded the lives of hundreds of young men in a positive manner. Unfortunately, for those young men who were victims of Mr. Sandusky's actions, Paterno, due to his previous inaction, has adversely affected their lives as well.
Evil is evil and we as human beings have a commitment to stop it. Whether you believe in a God or not, you should know enough to see wrong-doing and act to change or stop it. We are all short of perfection, but that does not mean we allow predators of human beings to roam free. Joe Pa should have turned in Sandusky, plain and simple.
Now an incredible legacy is stained as the Roman Catholic Church was stained. The lesson to be learned is that once you accept accountability you can then move forward. The church has moved forward and is regaining the trust of its parishioners. Now it is Penn State's, and Paterno's, turn.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
My thoughts on Mississippi's Nov. Initiatives
As usual, while most Mississippi voters are focused on individuals seeking the various statewide, legislative and county offices, many may not be aware that there are three initiatives on the ballot as well that will impact their lives greatly. Below is my take on those initiatives and where I stand on them.
I will start with Initiative #31:
Should government be prohibited from taking private property by eminent domain and then transferring it to other persons?
Initiative #31 would amend the Mississippi Constitution to prohibit state and local government from taking private property by eminent domain and then conveying it to other persons or private businesses for a period of 10 years after acquisition. Exceptions from the prohibition include drainage and levee facilities, roads, bridges, ports, airports, common carriers, and utilities. The prohibition would not apply in certain situations, including public nuisance, structures unfit for human habitation, or abandoned property.
During my time in the Mississippi House of Representatives, this issue showed its importance as we were trying to figure out how to get Nissan to locate their new plant in Canton. We committed millions of dollars in infrastructure development which included the use of eminent domain to make that happen. Eminent domain, which is the attainment of private property for public use, in that regard was a positive because it was used for public projects but it was clear it was beneficial for a private economic development interest.
This initiative will clarify in the Mississippi Constitution that eminent domain is only supposed to be used for public projects. It will prohibit eminent domain to be used, for example, to acquire land for the building of a strip mall, factory or an office building. The Farm Bureau has taken the lead in pushing this initiative because any expansion of eminent domain for private economic development would immediately threaten the largest group of landowners in the state, our farmers.
I will vote YES on this initiative.
Initiative #27:
Should the Mississippi Constitution be amended to require a person to submit government issued photo identification in order to vote?
Initiative #27 would amend the Mississippi Constitution to require voters to submit a government issued photo identification before being allowed to vote; provides that any voter lacking government issued photo identification may obtain photo identification without charge from the Mississippi Department of Public Safety; and exempts certain residents of state-licensed care facilities and religious objectors from being required to show photo identification in order to vote.
One of the most emotional days during my tenure in the Legislature was when we had to take a vote on making Voter ID mandatory, so much so that I wrote a column about it in the Jackson Free Press. Every member spoke on the floor and expressed their feelings, either in support or opposition, and afterwards many of us became closer, despite competing political philosophies.
Needless to say this is an emotional issue to members of the African-American community that remember poll taxes and questions like how many bubbles are there in a bar of soap. Voter ID seems like a practical, innocuous argument to preserve the integrity of the voting process. However, it has been used to suppress voter turnout for certain groups in other states. In Tennessee, a 96-year-old Black woman was denied the right to vote recently because she did not have a driver's license. In Florida, college students cannot use their college IDs, even if they attend state universities.
The author of the initiative, Sen. Joey Fillingane (R-Lamar County), organized the initiative drive after killing the Voter ID bill passed by the House in the Senate. His argument was that there needed to be a "clean" Voter ID bill, without provisions that would have allowed early voting, same-day registration and restoring the suffrage of first-time felons once they have served out their sentence. It is questionable whether the US Department of Justice will approve a Constitutional Amendment that requires Voter ID for all voters, but it is very possible.
It is the only initiative that has a cost attached to it. It is estimated that the initiative, if passed, could cost as much as $1.5 million from the Department of Public Safety budget. Obviously the proponents of the measure do not feel strongly enough to convince the state's 82 Circuit Clerks to provide photos on the voter registration cards they provide in their respective counties.
I will vote NO on this initiative.
Initiative #26:
Should the term “person” be defined to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the equivalent thereof?
Initiative #26 would amend the Mississippi Constitution to define the word “person” or “persons”, as those terms are used in Article III of the state constitution, to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof.
I am considered a pro-life politician. I was endorsed by Pro-Life Mississippi when I served in the House. I am opposed to abortion, an emergency medical procedure, being used as a form of birth/population control. I am a strong proponent of adoption and a former abstinence-only counselor. I voted for the House Bill that banned abortions in this state, but I was also the author of the amendment in that same bill that allowed exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother.
As a Christian, I believe life begins at conception and that God has predestined our lives before our existence on this earth begins. However, I have also made the argument that the US Constitution and the Mississippi Constitution are not the 67th and 68th books of the Holy Bible.
To redefine "person/persons" in Article III of the Mississippi Constitution would effectively ban abortions in this state, but how broad of a swath will this provision cut? Medical professionals are divided on whether the initiative would prevent in vitro fertilization and outlaw forms of conventional birth control. Would family planning activities be possibly outlawed? Would the exceptions of rape, incest and the health of the mother be considered?
Here is another scenario that has not be broached: Say an immigrant couple from El Salvador comes to Mississippi without proper documentation. The wife becomes pregnant in Mississippi and then they are caught. At that point, the deportation process begins. If the personhood initiative is passed, does that fetus, which would be considered a person in the Mississippi Constitution have the right to stay, thus preventing the mother from being deported? If the Federal Government is successful in deporting the mother, can the child come back and petition for US Citizenship based on the notion it was conceived in Mississippi and was considered a person by that state's Constitution?
This initiative has failed twice in Colorado, but will be introduced in four other states. The Mississippi initiative supporters' strategy is for this initiative to be challenged and struck down in the Federal Courts, moved up in the Federal docket to the Supreme Court of the United States, thus forcing them to re-visit the Roe v. Wade decision. I consider this an extreme action based on a constitutionally extreme political philosophy.
I will vote NO on this initiative.
Those are my positions. Research these initiatives for yourself and then cast your vote on November 8th.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Raise the roof
On August 2, 2011, the full faith and credit of the United States of America will be damaged. On this date, the USA will more than likely be downgraded in their credit rating by Moody's and Standards & Poor's and this will have a direct impact on us. The most immediate will be that interest rates on loans and mortgages will go up. For example, a home appraised at $200,000 will see the mortgage payment increase by $400 per month on a 30-year fixed rate mortgage.
We learned on July 25th that the wealth disparity in America has widened between white Americans and minorities in America. The ratio is 20:1 between whites and Blacks and 18:1 between whites and Hispanics. During the Clinton administration, the ratio was 7:1 with both groups. This is significant because the wealth gap will increase if the National Debt Ceiling is not raised by August 2nd. White families will see their wealth decrease, but minorities will suffer more from the higher interest rates.
There are two options that can happen. One, the US Congress can totally eliminate the debt ceiling altogether, thus allowing Congress to borrow money when needed without worrying about reaching any self-imposed limit. The negative side of that option would be the historical lack of self-discipline Congress has shown in spending the taxpayers' money.
The other option would be the one that has been exercised 20 times over the last seven years: Set a new debt ceiling rate to continue to allow the US Government to borrow the money needed to fund obligations and maintain the operation of government. Simple right? It would have been if partisan ideology had not interfered with the process.
The Tea Party Caucus put their foot down and said they would not support raising the debt ceiling without cuts in federal spending. The President acquiesced, but with a caveat that revenues needed to be increased by eliminating tax cuts and loopholes. That is when the political game of chicken began and now has put the financial stability of the United States in unnecessary peril.
I agree on these points: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, as we know it, needs to be reformed to stabilize costs and viability; overall government spending needs to be reduced; Tax cuts and loopholes need to be removed and the whole Federal Tax Code needs to be revised; the debt ceiling needs to be raised for two years. The only one that can be accomplished in the next five days is raising the debt ceiling.
A fractured Congress cannot pull off the miracle of miracles and address all of these issues in the time allotted. Quickly drafted legislation offered by both sides have proven that they do not have the time to get all of the numbers right in a massive budget package.
It is time to prioritize. The main priority right now is to raise the debt ceiling. The US Congress has to do it, based on their constitutional obligation. The 14th Amendment does not give the President the authority to by-pass them and raise the debt ceiling by Executive Order. The Speaker of the House and The Majority Leader of the Senate must act now to avoid putting the nation they claim to love, and pledge their allegiance to, in further financial distress.
It has been a spirited debate and a great exercise in partisan muscle flexing. Now it is time to do the patriotic thing and raise the roof, so that the full faith and credit of the United States of America will still stand as the strongest line of credit the world has ever seen. There is no other option.
We learned on July 25th that the wealth disparity in America has widened between white Americans and minorities in America. The ratio is 20:1 between whites and Blacks and 18:1 between whites and Hispanics. During the Clinton administration, the ratio was 7:1 with both groups. This is significant because the wealth gap will increase if the National Debt Ceiling is not raised by August 2nd. White families will see their wealth decrease, but minorities will suffer more from the higher interest rates.
There are two options that can happen. One, the US Congress can totally eliminate the debt ceiling altogether, thus allowing Congress to borrow money when needed without worrying about reaching any self-imposed limit. The negative side of that option would be the historical lack of self-discipline Congress has shown in spending the taxpayers' money.
The other option would be the one that has been exercised 20 times over the last seven years: Set a new debt ceiling rate to continue to allow the US Government to borrow the money needed to fund obligations and maintain the operation of government. Simple right? It would have been if partisan ideology had not interfered with the process.
The Tea Party Caucus put their foot down and said they would not support raising the debt ceiling without cuts in federal spending. The President acquiesced, but with a caveat that revenues needed to be increased by eliminating tax cuts and loopholes. That is when the political game of chicken began and now has put the financial stability of the United States in unnecessary peril.
I agree on these points: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, as we know it, needs to be reformed to stabilize costs and viability; overall government spending needs to be reduced; Tax cuts and loopholes need to be removed and the whole Federal Tax Code needs to be revised; the debt ceiling needs to be raised for two years. The only one that can be accomplished in the next five days is raising the debt ceiling.
A fractured Congress cannot pull off the miracle of miracles and address all of these issues in the time allotted. Quickly drafted legislation offered by both sides have proven that they do not have the time to get all of the numbers right in a massive budget package.
It is time to prioritize. The main priority right now is to raise the debt ceiling. The US Congress has to do it, based on their constitutional obligation. The 14th Amendment does not give the President the authority to by-pass them and raise the debt ceiling by Executive Order. The Speaker of the House and The Majority Leader of the Senate must act now to avoid putting the nation they claim to love, and pledge their allegiance to, in further financial distress.
It has been a spirited debate and a great exercise in partisan muscle flexing. Now it is time to do the patriotic thing and raise the roof, so that the full faith and credit of the United States of America will still stand as the strongest line of credit the world has ever seen. There is no other option.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
