A Letter To The Government
Dear Washington,
Why did you change the banking laws and create banks that were to big to fail. Then when they did fail, due to poor management at best, you bailed them out. Big money bankers who were largely responsible for the economic crisis got bonuses. Many middle class Americans lost their homes.
During these tough economic times, when the poor, elderly, and even the lower middle class can barely afford to heat their homes, oil companies make record profits. Do they really need record profits, wouldn’t average profits be good enough. Speaking of oil, how much does it cost me at the pump so that rich speculators can make more money.
Why in the world do the richest Americans pay the lowest tax rate. Why do the wealthiest get the tax breaks and write offs. Why do you give advantages to the advantaged. Why do companies get a tax break to create jobs overseas. Why are there so many members of congress and the cabinet who seem to forget to pay their taxes or claim all of their income. Sorry I am rambling now, there are just so many questions.
How long was insider trading illegal everywhere but congress. How could you pass a bill that effects everyone but you. The occupy wall street movement talks a lot about inequality in this country, I think I found the source. Even though the approval rating of congress is record low, after the next election most of the faces will be the same. You tell us that congressional term limits are a bad idea because you have to build relationships. With hundreds of former members of congress working as lobbyist I see what you mean.
Did the health care bill include any plans on how to provide service to an expanding market. What is the point of expanding a market if you can’t provide the service. Do the monuments in D. C. just suck the common sense out of you. Oh bye the way, not real impressed that you would vote for a bill of that magnitude before you knew what was in it.
The only thing bipartisan in Washington is their share of the blame, and a willingness to blame the other side. Washington is full of politicians when it should be full of statesmen, unfortunately special interest could not influence a statesmen as easily as a politician. Unlikely a super Pac is going to support a true statesmen, and since in politics “he who spends the most wins”, things are unlikely to change.
Concerned Citizen
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Health Care Mandate
The thought that the supreme court may decide to give congress the power to tax us if we do not buy what they want, is a little scary to me. With congress under the influence of special interest, and displaying poor judgement time and again, what will be next. There will be a "next" because this isn't the first.
In 1937 the supreme court ruled in favor of the social security act in the decision, Steward Machine Co. v. Davis. In dissent Justice Sutherland, with Van Devanter, wrote "The threat implicit in the present encroachment upon the administrative functions of the states is that greater encroachments, and encroachments upon other functions, will follow."[1]Recently Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated "there's something very odd about that, that the government can take over the whole thing and we all say, oh, that's fine, but if the government wants to preserve private insurers, it can't do that."[2]
Justice Ginsburg seems to be overlooking the fact that we do not all say that's fine and never have. I don't think that the federal government needs to inact another tax to preserve private insurers, I think that they are generally profitable. The administration calls it a fine but if it passes the supreme court it will likely be considered a tax by the court. In a another decision in 1937 Helvering v. Davis the supreme court upheld the social security act because "The proceeds of both [employer and employee] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way."[3] Now look, its bad enough that we have to pay taxes on the things we buy, but please don't tax us on the things we don't buy.
* [1] wikipedia.org/wiki/Steward_Machine_Company_V._Davis
[2] burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID22012120328002
* [3] wikipedia.org/wiki/social_security_act
* only wikipedia articles that cite sources are used.
The thought that the supreme court may decide to give congress the power to tax us if we do not buy what they want, is a little scary to me. With congress under the influence of special interest, and displaying poor judgement time and again, what will be next. There will be a "next" because this isn't the first.
In 1937 the supreme court ruled in favor of the social security act in the decision, Steward Machine Co. v. Davis. In dissent Justice Sutherland, with Van Devanter, wrote "The threat implicit in the present encroachment upon the administrative functions of the states is that greater encroachments, and encroachments upon other functions, will follow."[1]Recently Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated "there's something very odd about that, that the government can take over the whole thing and we all say, oh, that's fine, but if the government wants to preserve private insurers, it can't do that."[2]
Justice Ginsburg seems to be overlooking the fact that we do not all say that's fine and never have. I don't think that the federal government needs to inact another tax to preserve private insurers, I think that they are generally profitable. The administration calls it a fine but if it passes the supreme court it will likely be considered a tax by the court. In a another decision in 1937 Helvering v. Davis the supreme court upheld the social security act because "The proceeds of both [employer and employee] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way."[3] Now look, its bad enough that we have to pay taxes on the things we buy, but please don't tax us on the things we don't buy.
* [1] wikipedia.org/wiki/Steward_Machine_Company_V._Davis
[2] burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID22012120328002
* [3] wikipedia.org/wiki/social_security_act
* only wikipedia articles that cite sources are used.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
