If the Senate is so eager to change the rules of the Senate, why don’t they change it so that any life-term appointment requires a 2/3 up/down vote.
When you get right down to it, I would prefer that the federal judges have a super-majority consensus for appointment rather than the support of whatever idealogues are in the majority at the moment. (Judges are the only ones that get life-time appointments, right?)
Health-Care Costs Expected to Soar Over Next Decade
This article discusses some of the pending healthcare cost rises. From an est. $1.9 Trillion in 2005 to $3.6 Trillion in 2014.
I want to look at the per person costs for healthcare. For 2005, I will figure on a Population of 290 Million. For 2014, I will use 310 Million.
Using the numbers above, our health care costs average $6,552 per person in 2005, rising to $11,613 in 2014.
If we consider insurance as a shared risk pool, it would seem to me that for a $6552 a year everyone should should get into a health insurance plan. I will even give up $552 a year for as a deductible and say $6000 a year. For Elaine and myself, a mere $12,000 a year will cover us for healthcare; rising to $22000 a year in 2014. (I am going to a $613 deductible in 2014) .
Of course, this insurance pool needs to include EVERYONE, from newborn babe to deathbed pensioner. If we allow opt-in/opt-out options, then many sub-30 people will opt-out because “We are in the Pink of Health!” And a family with 8 kids and 2 parents will face an annual insurance bill of $60,000 with a $5520 deductible. Somehow, I don’t think that will be economically viable from the family’s point of view.
My numbers are a bit higher than the article’s. I think I am assuming a lower population number, but our costs per person are close. The upshot would appear to be that while a wage-earning individual faces a reasonable average payment, the gross family payments account equal or exceed the poverty level for a family of 3, or greater. (The single Poverty rate is greater than the $6,552 for a single healthcare share. The family of 2 Poverty rate is just just less than the $13,104 healthcare rate for two.) Something seems askew when the poverty rate doesn’t include health insurance costs.
I see that there are a lot of comments going on about a National ID card. Evidently, some in the Congress are trying to mandate that state driver’s licenses should contain a common set of information, that that information will be shared across a common database system between all 50 states and that a driver needs to prove their citizenship to get a license.
I don’t have any problem with Congress mandating that state’s DLs have common information. It makes sense that IDs should include a name, picture and DOB. And I think that some states don’t include all that information on a DL.
What I strenuously object to is the idea of sharing information between states. I am a citizen/resident of Colorado. I don’t need for any Californian browsing through my record, whether with good intentions, no intentions or bad intentions. It is not anyone’s business, outside of Colorado, what my DL says.
As a secondary objection, the idea of mandating that states verify US citizenship before issuing a license is stupid. The Feds aren’t going to put any money into the time and effort to handle validation. What I would suggest is that the Feds define what constitutes proof of citizenship and then ask the state to note on the driver’s license that “Proof of US Citizenship Presented” or something like that if the citizen presents proof. If someone wants a license but doesn’t want to gather the necessary documents then the field can be left blank or filled in with “No Proof of Citizenship Presented”. If someone comes in for a license and presents proof of Japanese citizenship then that can be noted on the license. I don’t see any reason to stop someone from getting a Driver License just because they aren’t a citizen. As long as they are residing in the state, I think it would behoove us to know that they know the rules of the road.
One of the on-going problems with the whole Driver License National ID is that there are a number of people who don’t drive. I know of a few non-drivers. I expect in 20-30 years I will be a non-driver. Some states, maybe all, offer a non-driver license ID so non-drivers can have the checking cashing ID form so many stores require. This could be included with the ‘National ID’ card as well.
I know some tellers get freaked out when you show them your US Passport as an ID.
PS > No Social Security Number on your Driver License. < The odds of someone hacking the DL database and getting critical ID information are pretty high. They only need to do it once. And if the state Databases are networked, then everyone loses their Identity.
It would appear that people have forgotten the principles of representative government and why we elect representatives to the Congress every two years.
The holders of those offices certainly don’t want the people to think about how they are not doing their jobs. They would prefer to distract ‘The People’ and point to irrelvant issues to consider.
Taken in the light of ‘The People’ governing themselves, I don’t see very many liberals on the National Political Scene. And it may be that you have to sell your soul to get to that level. ‘The People’ don’t seem to have much to say about critical federal items like debt-ceiling and deficits. Everything seems to be pork barrel politics; get the goods for your district and keep the voters happy, even if you have to compromise your principles by supporting someone else’s bill that doesn’t really impact your district anyway.
And it may be that people just aren’t paying attention to what the idiots in DC are doing this term, because at the Federal level there aren’t that many items that have a direct daily impact on people. How your representative voted regarding salmon fishing farms of the coast of Washington State probably doesn’t have much impact on the average citizen not on the coast of Washington State. But what sort of deals were cut to get that vote?
Maybe, in the global scheme of things, Salmon Fish Farming has a role. I think that is part of why representatives are in Washington. To get the information together that will alow them to make an informed vote and not a bought vote. Their vote should be for their constituents first, and for the US second, if they do’t see their constituency as being a primary player.
We don’t have a very representative democracy anymore, here in the USA. There is 1 person representing almost 1 million citizens in Montana. That doesn’t sound very representative to me. On average, each representative represents 650,000 citizens. That doesn’t sound very representive to me. I think one representative for every 100,000 citizens is a fair goal. It may get a bit chaotic on the Hill trying to get 50% of 3000 representatives to agree on something, but democracy isn’t pretty.
I would actually suggest that a 2/3 majority is needed to pass a federal law, but that might be going to far. I’m willing to compromise on 50%+. If you can’t get 67% of the representatives to agree on a budget, maybe there are some things in it that don’t belong there.
I heard the the House has passed a bill that will do away with the Estate Tax in 2010, so it doesn’t come back as currently allowed.
What I don’t understand is why the Republicans think that the estate tax is ‘unfair’. The person who earned the estate, built it up penny by penny, is dead. They don’t need it anymore. Once you leave the playing table, your chips revert to the bank.
All right, so they want to pass their ill-gotten gains onto others. How is this fair? One measure of success in our society is your net worth. So these inheritors are suddenly swimming in money without lifting a finger. How is that fair?
Not having an Estate Tax is inherently unfair. It promotes the growth of an aristocracy that claims great material wealth based on the activities of their ancestors. I think the British have already demonstrated the usefulness of these twits.
Another argument made about the Estae Tax is that it causes family businesses to break up because they have to sell the business assets to pay the tax.
My solution is simple. Property that is inherited is not taxed at the time of inheritence. It is only taxed when it is sold. If someone passes on the family farm, worth 10’s of millions of dollars, to three children, along with 10 million dollars, the Estate Tax would be figured on the dollars and not the farm (unless the children want to sell it). When one or all of the children decide to sell part or whole of the farm, then they pay the Estate Tax on it. The same can be done for paintings, artwork, jewelry, family heirlooms. No tax until they are sold. Stocks, bonds, money instruments, basically anything the SEC might oversee, are taxed when inherited, if the total value of the Estate at time of death exceeds some set value. (We don’t count property appreciation after death.)
What would be a good set value to start Estate Taxes? How about 10 times the anual salary of the President of the United States? or 5 times? That allows the value to change with the times and not squeeze everyone once inflation pushes the poverty level up to $1,000,000.
I can across this commentary last week and it addressed a question I have been puzzling about for a while.
“What exactly is a Liberal?”
I have peripherally been following the Conservative/Liberal clash in the US and am puzzled why the term ‘Liberal’ has picked up such a bad connotation. ‘Liberal’ has been the hallmark of American politics for over 220 years.
Mahablog answers this in a perceptive way, A liberal is one who believes that ‘The People’ can govern themsleves; a conservative believes that ‘The People’ can’t govern themselves, but instead appeals to a higher or singular authority to enable governance. (This makes Scalia’s comment a lot more obvious.)
The conservative approach is to appeal to a higher authority, to deify or sanctify one individual, usually the President in US politics, and say that he is the Ruler and that what he wants is the ‘right thing’ and that all who oppose him are evil. If the President doesn’t come up to snuff, then you can point to an ayatollah or a newt for governance.
Kings, Caesars, Dictators, High Priests, Archbishops, Witch Doctors, Chiefs, Elders, Popes, Jedi Knights. These are all higher authorities that people look to for guidance. So often, it is the cultural background that demands obedience without evidence. And questioning them for the evidence is heresy and undermines the faith of others. Faith. That is the ultimate appeal of the higher authority. You don’t need evidence if you have faith.
When ‘The People’ singularly, or within groups, give up their right to determine for themselves who shall represent them, and instead follow the dictates of a demagogue who is influenced and guided by larger demagogues, then democracy is lost.
It will be interesting to see what happens in Iraq in the next few years. My impression, albeit from sketchy sources, is that the Iraqi people don’t necessarily believe that ‘The People’ should govern themselves. There are learned and wise people who have studied the arts of governance and they are the ones that need to be in charge. How they determine the top dog is their problem, not a problem for ‘The People’. I hope I am wrong. I hope that the Iraqi’s will work out the governance problems and become liberals. We shall see.
Democracy is not pretty. Democracy involves working with people you wouldn’t want within a thousand meters of you. Democracy means being a liberal.
As Aftergood notes at the end of his article:
Information is the oxygen of democracy. Day by day, the Bush administration is cutting off the supply.
I enjoy reading Dahlia Lithwick’s pieces in Slate. She reviews the Supreme Court hearings. This latest one on the display of ‘religious’ symbols in a public place is a good example: Take Two Tablets – The Supreme Court picks through the rubble of its Ten Commandments jurisprudence. By Dahlia Lithwick
What caught my attention was a quote by Justice Scalia. I sure hope that there was some other context he was using.
_____________________
Scalia’s point here: “When someone walks by the commandments, they are not studying the text. They are acknowledging that the government derives its authority from God.”
_____________________
I can’t understand how any Supreme Court Justice could believe that the government derives its authority from God. From the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution of the United States, it is We, The People, that authorize the Government. The Government derives its authority from The People.
Can you even graduate from Law School without having that drummed into the very core of your being?
The SSA withholding is 6.2 % for employee, matched by employer, for a total of 12.4% of income up to the magic cap, around $90K today. The Medicaid withholding is 1.45%, matched by employer, for a total of 2.9% with no cap. So, a total of 15.3% is withheld up to the cap and 2.9% thereafter.
Let’s see if that changes my numbers any. (how do I link back to an earlier post?)
”
Social Security Reform – For 2003 there was about 533.5 billion dollars collected from 156 million workers (plus employers).
That comes down to $3420 per worker/employer or $1710 per worker per year. (Employer matches an equal amount per worker to SSA)
”
Nope, I was looking at totals and not percent contributions. From What I hear, they are talking about up to 4% of the 6.2% contribution to a maximum of $1000. That doesn’t even seem to be worth the time or effort to manage. 4%/6.2%= 64.5%. So they will allow the average worker to divert 64.5% of $1710 to a private account or $1103 per year. But that’s over the $1000 limit. 58.5% would max out to $1000. 3.6% withholding diversion will meet that. So what will that do to the received SSA benefits 30-40 years down the road.
The Congress, in its infinite, partisan, wisdom, has already developed an answer to the “Private Account” It is called an Individual Retirement Account (IRA). The IRA is managed by the individual and money contributed now is non-taxable. The proceeds, when drawn out post 59.5 years old, are taxed when withdrawn (substantial penalty for early withdrawal.) The IRA can be passed on via inheritance. It belongs to the contributor. People are entitled to contribute up to $4000 a year now. That amount should grow with inflation.
So, why don’t we stop planning to downsize the SSA fund contributions with private accounts and promote IRAs? I think Congress, iiipw, can do things to promote the use of IRAs, like mandating automatic payroll deductions to IRA accounts UNLESS the employee opts out or requests a lower deduction (I think the base deduction should put the max allowable into the IRA over the course of the year.) And the Employee has to re-opt every year.
The main reason for this is to get people thinking about their retirement plans. SSA is a retirement supplement. People shouldn’t plan on surviving on it. And the way corporate America is going today, folks will be very lucky to have any retirement benefits unless they organize the benefits themselves. At least I didn’t have to worry about my company’s pension plan being sundered when it declared bankruptcy because it didn’t have one to sunder. (of course, my 401k funds took a hit when all that company-contributed stock went to $0, but that’s another story.)
Regarding the pending SSA cash-flow crunch that opponents of SS call a “crisis” there a couple of hard choices to make.
First, I think that contribution cap should disappear.
Second, benefits should be reduced to follow inflation and not income. (it’s a supplement, not a wage)
Third, the age to collect benefits needs to be raised to that age where life expectancy is, say, 10 years more. (If someone who reaches 65 can expect, on average, to live to 80, then 65 is too young to collect benefits. If someone who reaches 71 can expect to live to 81, then they can start collecting. This all depends on actuarial tables and averages and not on individuals, but SS is, effectively, an insurance program. Others can argue about the male/female life expectancy differences. I think when you get to that age it shouldn’t matter.)
Fourth; Stop using SSA money to cover government debt. Keep the SSA Trust fund as a separate account from the treasury general funds.
I understand that Tax Reform is scurrying around the Hill once again. I have a simple proposal. The Federal Income Tax is equal to (10%+(.0001% x AGI)) AGI. Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) equals the post tax-free income (IRA, 401k, etc) minus the Poverty Level for your situation. At the national level, a family of four PL is about $20K, a single is about $10K.
So, if a family of four earns $50K, then their AGI is $30K and they would pay 13% of that: $3900. A family earning $100K has an AGI of $80K and would pay 18% or $14,400. I expect that the rate should cap out at 30%, so a family making $400K would have an AGI of $380K and pay 30% tax on that, or $114,000.
A single earning $50K would have an AGI of $40K and pay 14%, or $5600. A single making $11K would have an AGI of $1K and pay 11%, $110.
There is only one deduction, the Poverty Level; no Mortgage interest deduction, no charity deductions, no withholding deductions. After thinking about this some more I can see one more modification that needs to be added and that is for catastrophic medical payments. I don’t think taxing major medical treatment should be allowed.
What do do if a family earning $50K faces a medical bill of $250K or even $5K? I think that here we will reduce the AGI by an amount equal to anything in excess of 10% of the premed-AGI, so, in the example above, if the $50K family has a $5K medical emergency they could reduce their $30K AGI by $2K and pay 12.8% on $28K, or $3584.
The numbers can be played with, but the basic focus of this proposal is to use the poverty level as the baseline deduction. This is the value that we measure for basic sustenance. I expect one major change would be to use the local poverty level instead of the national poverty level as the deduction. I expect that poverty is defined higher in NYC than in Milledgeville, TN.
I was just looking a the US Poverty Guidelines and they differentiate between HA, AK, and the lower 48.
PS. I tie all this together by making Representative salaries 5 times the national Poverty Level for a family of four. So, if they try to play games with the poverty guidelines, they will notice as well.