On February 11, the 31st anniversary of the Revolution, Iran announced that it had become a nuclear state. Iran has refined uranium well below the 90% purity that is needed for nuclear weapons but many scientists acknowledge that 90% uranium may be only months away due to the great number of centrifuges that Iran possesses. For many years our Intelligence agencies have been warning that Iran was pursuing a nuclear capability and now it seems their warnings have come to fruition.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has stated publicly and repeatedly his desire to “wipe Israel from the face of the earth”. In 1981 Israel bombed and destroyed the nuclear reactor under construction in Baghdad, Iraq. The result of this bombing mission was Saddam Hussein was never able to develop nuclear weapons. In 2007 Israel repeated their attack but this time the target was a reactor in the nation of Syria (1). The world must understand Israel will act independently if they believe they are at risk.
After a wasted year trying to negotiate with Ahmedinejad, President Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates are now calling for immediate sanctions against Iran. Many experts believe sanctions are not possible because China and Russia have close economic ties with Iran and are members of the U.N. Security council which gives them veto power over all resolutions.
Russia has signed an agricultural and telecommunications agreement with Iran and there is $3.7 billion in trade conducted annually between the two countries. China has become Iran’s largest trading partner and relies on Iran for 11% of its energy needs. Trade between the two countries is now valued at over $36 billion annually (2). Both the Chinese and Russian governments have indicated they will not support sanctions against Iran.
In the United States the Medicare program began paying more in benefits than it collected in tax revenue in 2008 while Social Security will begin to do the same in 2016 (3). Deficits in these two programs will have to be covered by drawing money from the general fund of the United States Treasury. Most of this money will be borrowed from China in the form of Treasury note sales.
Currently the United States is carrying $12.3 trillion in debt (4) and Congress has just voted to increase the national debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion to $14.3 trillion. China and Russia hold a combined $918 billion (about 25%) of the $3.6 trillion the United States owes to foreign countries (5).
On February 10, the day before Iran’s nuclear announcement, the Chinese military threatened to dump its U.S. bonds on the open market (6). This would drive interest rates so high it would disrupt our already ailing economy. It is a fact that China’s position on this issue must be considered before any action is taken against Iran.
If Israel acts militarily against Iran our President will have a difficult choice to make. Will he defend Israel in a war that would surely follow an attack and risk having China destroy our economy or will he forsake Israel to delay the inevitable day of reckoning with our creditors? Israel may already know the answer to that question; one of their ministers, Limor Livnat, was reported to have remarked “Israel has fallen into the hands of a terrible American administration” (7).
Carl D. Goodson
www.carldgoodson.com
Clute, TX
(1) www.economist.com/world/middleast-africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15213442
(2) www.upi.com/Science_News/Resource-Wars/2010/02/09/China-passes-EU-in-trade-with-Iran/UPI-55541265737793
(3) www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
(4) www.usdebtclock.org/
(5) www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt
(6) www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/10/chinese-see-us-debt-as-weapon/
(7) www.economist.com/world/middleast-africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15213442
Monday, February 22, 2010
Saturday, February 20, 2010
The end of Social Security
On Thursday Feb.18 President Obama signed an executive order creating a “Deficit Reduction Commission” (DRC). Former Senator Alan Simpson and former Clinton Whitehouse Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles have been appointed to lead the commission. Both Simpson and Bowles acknowledge that serious consideration must be given to the Social Security Program which includes Medicare.
Senator Simpson stated that the President has told them that everything is “on the table” and Mr. Bowles says that the discussion cannot start with certain programs or tax increases being declared non-touchable. Sen. Simpson says there are really only two ways to fix Social Security; a) increase taxes or reduce benefits and/or b) institute an affluence test to see if individuals are in real need of benefits. Reducing benefits is a move that would surely anger progressive liberals that believe in big government programs.
Author Paul Waldman writes in 2009 for The American Prospect Magazine “Social Security is not going broke….in fact there is a $2 trillion surplus” (1). The truth is since 1977 the FICA tax that funds Social Security has collected over $14.5 trillion (2) while paying only $10.4 trillion in benefits (3). This has created a $4 trillion surplus over the past 33 years. Social Security suffered irreparable damage with the passage of the Social Security Act of 1965 which allowed any surpluses in the Social Security trust fund to be withdrawn and used by Congress as part of the general fund.
Congress would replace the $4 trillion withdrawn from the trust fund with I.O.U.’s that would be cashed in if the fund ever began to be depleted. Well Congress has managed to spend the extra $4 trillion and now Social Security, for the first time ever, will have outlays that total more than revenues. It is time to begin cashing in those I.O.U.’s but we will have to do that by borrowing from foreign countries as there is no money left in the treasury.
Some conservatives are proponents of abolishing Social Security and Medicare. This idea would create unimaginable hardships for millions of Americans and is the most unlikely if not inevitable conclusion of the DRC. The debate that would follow any such suggestion would surely be one that every American would watch with keen interest.
A co-worker of mine suggested each individual under the age of 65 that has contributed any FICA tax to the system for at least 20 years be refunded their contribution and let them invest it themselves. This would be a means of ending Social Security and still giving Americans back some of their money. This seems like a reasonable proposal (if you do not mind excluding the millions of people age 18 to 44 that have made some form of contribution) but some cursory fact checking reveals that our government cannot afford to even pay these people what is owed them.
Over the last 20 years the average American’s median income is $23,155 (4). The FICA tax paid on $23,155 is $1,435 per year or $28,700 over the last 20 years. There are approximately 85 million people under age 65 that have contributed FICA taxes for at least 20 years. To refund these 85 million people their contributions (without any earned interest) would cost the Treasury almost $2.5 trillion. Once again these payments would be made with money borrowed from foreign nations.
Americans must realize that Social Security and Medicare are the federal budget “busters” and must be reformed before our country can begin to repair its’ financial situation. It is time politicians began telling the citizenry the truth about our finances. Americans are tough and resilient and will deal with any problem that arises as long as we know the real score. I am afraid the only reform that will allow our country to avoid bankruptcy and becoming a third world nation is for everyone to realize there will be no Social Security for them and to plan accordingly.
Carl D. Goodson
Clute, TX
www.carldgoodson.com
www.conservativecarl.blogspot.com
(1) www.prospect.org/cs/article?article=there_is_no_social_security_crisis
(2) www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf
(3) www.truthandpolitics.org/budget-numbers-intro.php
(4) www.bea.gov/bea/regional/spi/
Senator Simpson stated that the President has told them that everything is “on the table” and Mr. Bowles says that the discussion cannot start with certain programs or tax increases being declared non-touchable. Sen. Simpson says there are really only two ways to fix Social Security; a) increase taxes or reduce benefits and/or b) institute an affluence test to see if individuals are in real need of benefits. Reducing benefits is a move that would surely anger progressive liberals that believe in big government programs.
Author Paul Waldman writes in 2009 for The American Prospect Magazine “Social Security is not going broke….in fact there is a $2 trillion surplus” (1). The truth is since 1977 the FICA tax that funds Social Security has collected over $14.5 trillion (2) while paying only $10.4 trillion in benefits (3). This has created a $4 trillion surplus over the past 33 years. Social Security suffered irreparable damage with the passage of the Social Security Act of 1965 which allowed any surpluses in the Social Security trust fund to be withdrawn and used by Congress as part of the general fund.
Congress would replace the $4 trillion withdrawn from the trust fund with I.O.U.’s that would be cashed in if the fund ever began to be depleted. Well Congress has managed to spend the extra $4 trillion and now Social Security, for the first time ever, will have outlays that total more than revenues. It is time to begin cashing in those I.O.U.’s but we will have to do that by borrowing from foreign countries as there is no money left in the treasury.
Some conservatives are proponents of abolishing Social Security and Medicare. This idea would create unimaginable hardships for millions of Americans and is the most unlikely if not inevitable conclusion of the DRC. The debate that would follow any such suggestion would surely be one that every American would watch with keen interest.
A co-worker of mine suggested each individual under the age of 65 that has contributed any FICA tax to the system for at least 20 years be refunded their contribution and let them invest it themselves. This would be a means of ending Social Security and still giving Americans back some of their money. This seems like a reasonable proposal (if you do not mind excluding the millions of people age 18 to 44 that have made some form of contribution) but some cursory fact checking reveals that our government cannot afford to even pay these people what is owed them.
Over the last 20 years the average American’s median income is $23,155 (4). The FICA tax paid on $23,155 is $1,435 per year or $28,700 over the last 20 years. There are approximately 85 million people under age 65 that have contributed FICA taxes for at least 20 years. To refund these 85 million people their contributions (without any earned interest) would cost the Treasury almost $2.5 trillion. Once again these payments would be made with money borrowed from foreign nations.
Americans must realize that Social Security and Medicare are the federal budget “busters” and must be reformed before our country can begin to repair its’ financial situation. It is time politicians began telling the citizenry the truth about our finances. Americans are tough and resilient and will deal with any problem that arises as long as we know the real score. I am afraid the only reform that will allow our country to avoid bankruptcy and becoming a third world nation is for everyone to realize there will be no Social Security for them and to plan accordingly.
Carl D. Goodson
Clute, TX
www.carldgoodson.com
www.conservativecarl.blogspot.com
(1) www.prospect.org/cs/article?article=there_is_no_social_security_crisis
(2) www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf
(3) www.truthandpolitics.org/budget-numbers-intro.php
(4) www.bea.gov/bea/regional/spi/
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Could illegal aliens choose our next President?
Along with the New Year comes the once per decade United States census. The more recent censuses have created heated debates and this year is no different. Senator David Vitter, a Republican from Louisiana, introduced legislation that would require persons not in the country legally to be omitted in the counting of our population.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) allowed the bill to come to the floor of the Senate but did not allow any debate to take place. The Vitter amendment was defeated 60 to 39 on a vote that was strictly along party lines. The only Senator not voting was the too liberal Republican John McCain of Arizona.
In 1790 the first Census Act stated that “only bona fide members of a state, subject to all the requisitions of its laws, and entitled to all the privileges which they confer” shall be counted. The first census actually asked individuals their place of birth to determine if they were a lawful citizen that should be counted (1). The decision to count or not count illegal aliens is a decision that will have consequences for the next decade. Yet many Americans do not realize the ramifications of an inaccurate count of lawful citizens.
Each year there is approximately $400 billion in discretionary funds in the Federal budget. Using data furnished by the census bureau the federal government disperses these funds based on an areas total population (2). The more populated an area is the more federal dollars that area receives for social services such as unemployment benefits. Is it really fair that an area flush with illegal aliens receive more Federal dollars than an area that is more heavily populated with American citizens?
If illegal aliens are counted in the 2010 census nine states, ( Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Pennsylvania and Oregon), will each lose one representative in the House of Representatives. Four states (California, Texas, Illinois and New York) will gain representatives (3). This means that illegal aliens will have a voice in Congress and influence American policy.
The Electoral College consists of voters from each state called Electors. Each state sends as many Electors to the Electoral College as they have Senators and Representatives. For example if a state has two Senators and 46 Representatives they would send 48 electors to the electoral college.. If illegal aliens are counted in the census and the result is some states losing representatives while others gain representatives, the Electoral College will not reflect the true counting of legal citizens. An example of this is the 2004 Presidential election. Because Illegal aliens were counted in the 2000 census John Kerry received five electoral votes that otherwise would have gone to George Bush (4). States with a high population of illegal aliens will have more representation than states with a low population of illegals even if the population of legitimate citizens is the same. Therefore it could be argued that illegal aliens could influence the outcome of an American presidential election. Is this the outcome the American public desires? I believe this is the outcome the liberal politician desires.
Americans should petition Senator Vitter to reintroduce his legislation to the Senate and then contact their Senator and ask them to vote for this bill.
Carl D. Goodson
(1)http://onlinewsj.com/article/SB10001424042970204908604574332950796281832.html
(2) http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21803&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721
(3) http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/apportion.pdf?docID=2061
(4) Ibid.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) allowed the bill to come to the floor of the Senate but did not allow any debate to take place. The Vitter amendment was defeated 60 to 39 on a vote that was strictly along party lines. The only Senator not voting was the too liberal Republican John McCain of Arizona.
In 1790 the first Census Act stated that “only bona fide members of a state, subject to all the requisitions of its laws, and entitled to all the privileges which they confer” shall be counted. The first census actually asked individuals their place of birth to determine if they were a lawful citizen that should be counted (1). The decision to count or not count illegal aliens is a decision that will have consequences for the next decade. Yet many Americans do not realize the ramifications of an inaccurate count of lawful citizens.
Each year there is approximately $400 billion in discretionary funds in the Federal budget. Using data furnished by the census bureau the federal government disperses these funds based on an areas total population (2). The more populated an area is the more federal dollars that area receives for social services such as unemployment benefits. Is it really fair that an area flush with illegal aliens receive more Federal dollars than an area that is more heavily populated with American citizens?
If illegal aliens are counted in the 2010 census nine states, ( Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Pennsylvania and Oregon), will each lose one representative in the House of Representatives. Four states (California, Texas, Illinois and New York) will gain representatives (3). This means that illegal aliens will have a voice in Congress and influence American policy.
The Electoral College consists of voters from each state called Electors. Each state sends as many Electors to the Electoral College as they have Senators and Representatives. For example if a state has two Senators and 46 Representatives they would send 48 electors to the electoral college.. If illegal aliens are counted in the census and the result is some states losing representatives while others gain representatives, the Electoral College will not reflect the true counting of legal citizens. An example of this is the 2004 Presidential election. Because Illegal aliens were counted in the 2000 census John Kerry received five electoral votes that otherwise would have gone to George Bush (4). States with a high population of illegal aliens will have more representation than states with a low population of illegals even if the population of legitimate citizens is the same. Therefore it could be argued that illegal aliens could influence the outcome of an American presidential election. Is this the outcome the American public desires? I believe this is the outcome the liberal politician desires.
Americans should petition Senator Vitter to reintroduce his legislation to the Senate and then contact their Senator and ask them to vote for this bill.
Carl D. Goodson
(1)http://onlinewsj.com/article/SB10001424042970204908604574332950796281832.html
(2) http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21803&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721
(3) http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/apportion.pdf?docID=2061
(4) Ibid.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Virtual fence
On January 13, 2010 Conses Garcia-Zacarias was sentenced to a maximum of 8-1/3 to 25 years in prison for running over and killing 37 year old Lori Donohue and her eight year old daughter Kayla as they walked from Kayla’s dance class to their car. Garcia-Zacarias was intoxicated at the time of the killings and was in the United States illegally (1).
Angel Maturino Resendiz was arrested 18 times by 11 different Federal or State law enforcement agencies in a 25 year period with the last arrest occurring in Lexington, Kentucky in 1996. From March 23, 1997 until he surrendered to officials in July 1999 he murdered 12 people. A sad fact is Resendiz, after killing eight people, was in custody but was released by immigration enforcement authorities on June 1, 1999. After being released Resendiz continued his murderous ways and committed four more murders (2). Resendiz’s crime spree was so horrific he became known as the “Railway Killer”.
On September 11, 2001 2,973 people lost their lives in the worst single attack ever on U.S. soil. 15 of the 19 hijackers that flew those airplanes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania should have never been issued visas or granted entry into the country (3). As sad and frightening as 9/11 was, most people would be shocked to learn that, on average, 4,380 people each year lose their lives to people that enter our country illegally or overstay their visa’s (4).
In May 2009 President Barak Obama’s de-funded plans to finish the construction of the barrier fence along the U.S.-Mexico border. $147 million was slashed from the barrier project’s budget by the President (5). Now President Obama has submitted his 2011 budget proposal which will eliminate 180 border agent positions and reduces funding for the “virtual” portion of the fence system by $226 million (6).
Given the events of 9/11/2001 it is easy to understand the attention that focuses on any incident involving airplanes. In response to the Christmas day bombing attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab President Obama is shifting resources away from the Southern border and emphasizing air travel security.
In January 2009 our new President signed an executive order authorizing the spending of $400 million annually for abortions performed overseas (7). Now that our country is in an economically challenged position maybe it is time to rethink and re-prioritize our spending. Common sense would dictate that $400 million dollars should be spent protecting American lives instead of being used to kill the unborn in far away countries.
$400 million would replace the $226 million the President has removed from border security activities and still leave a $174 million surplus. How many Border Patrol Agent positions would $174 million create? 1500, 2000 or maybe even more? After the initial $226 million outlay in year one the entire $400 million could be earmarked to secure our nations borders with additional agents and equipment.
A secure non-penetrable border fence is not a tool to practice prejudice against a group of people but rather a tool to ensure the safety of the American citizen that pays for that fence and their safety with their tax money.
Carl D. Goodson
Clute, TX
(1) www.lohud.com/article/20100114/NEWS01/1140367/DWI-killer-of-mother--daughter-gets-maximum-sentence
(2) “Invasion” Michelle Malkin Copyright 2002 Regnery Publishing inc. pp.87-102
(3) “Outrage” by Dick Morris and Eileen McCann copyright 2007 HarperCollins Publishing p.21
(4) www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103
(5) www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/050809dnnatborderfence.4053ed2.html
(6) www.infowars.com/obama-proposes-to-cut-180-border-patrol-agents/
(7) www.rueters.com/article/idUSTRE50M3PQ20090123
Angel Maturino Resendiz was arrested 18 times by 11 different Federal or State law enforcement agencies in a 25 year period with the last arrest occurring in Lexington, Kentucky in 1996. From March 23, 1997 until he surrendered to officials in July 1999 he murdered 12 people. A sad fact is Resendiz, after killing eight people, was in custody but was released by immigration enforcement authorities on June 1, 1999. After being released Resendiz continued his murderous ways and committed four more murders (2). Resendiz’s crime spree was so horrific he became known as the “Railway Killer”.
On September 11, 2001 2,973 people lost their lives in the worst single attack ever on U.S. soil. 15 of the 19 hijackers that flew those airplanes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania should have never been issued visas or granted entry into the country (3). As sad and frightening as 9/11 was, most people would be shocked to learn that, on average, 4,380 people each year lose their lives to people that enter our country illegally or overstay their visa’s (4).
In May 2009 President Barak Obama’s de-funded plans to finish the construction of the barrier fence along the U.S.-Mexico border. $147 million was slashed from the barrier project’s budget by the President (5). Now President Obama has submitted his 2011 budget proposal which will eliminate 180 border agent positions and reduces funding for the “virtual” portion of the fence system by $226 million (6).
Given the events of 9/11/2001 it is easy to understand the attention that focuses on any incident involving airplanes. In response to the Christmas day bombing attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab President Obama is shifting resources away from the Southern border and emphasizing air travel security.
In January 2009 our new President signed an executive order authorizing the spending of $400 million annually for abortions performed overseas (7). Now that our country is in an economically challenged position maybe it is time to rethink and re-prioritize our spending. Common sense would dictate that $400 million dollars should be spent protecting American lives instead of being used to kill the unborn in far away countries.
$400 million would replace the $226 million the President has removed from border security activities and still leave a $174 million surplus. How many Border Patrol Agent positions would $174 million create? 1500, 2000 or maybe even more? After the initial $226 million outlay in year one the entire $400 million could be earmarked to secure our nations borders with additional agents and equipment.
A secure non-penetrable border fence is not a tool to practice prejudice against a group of people but rather a tool to ensure the safety of the American citizen that pays for that fence and their safety with their tax money.
Carl D. Goodson
Clute, TX
(1) www.lohud.com/article/20100114/NEWS01/1140367/DWI-killer-of-mother--daughter-gets-maximum-sentence
(2) “Invasion” Michelle Malkin Copyright 2002 Regnery Publishing inc. pp.87-102
(3) “Outrage” by Dick Morris and Eileen McCann copyright 2007 HarperCollins Publishing p.21
(4) www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103
(5) www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/050809dnnatborderfence.4053ed2.html
(6) www.infowars.com/obama-proposes-to-cut-180-border-patrol-agents/
(7) www.rueters.com/article/idUSTRE50M3PQ20090123
Zero Liability Voters
Yesterday I was completing my tax returns for the year just ended when I remembered a passage from a book I had recently read. The author of the book claimed that 50% of Americans pay no income taxes. I thought that 50% seemed excessive so I took the opportunity to conduct an experiment.
For my experiment I assumed I had a decent job that paid me $20 per hour which is $41,600 per year with no overtime. I also decided I had a wife that was the most wonderful stay at home mom in the world and took excellent care of my two young children.
I completed form 1040 from the IRS and took the standard deductions, the child tax credit and, since I would qualify under this scenario, the Earned Income Tax Credit. I couldn’t believe the results I was seeing on paper.
Did you know that if you are married and have children and make up to $23.21 per hour or $48,279 per year the government wants to give you some of my money? That’s right. Our fearless leaders, we call them politicians, have determined you deserve a hand out from the federal government at tax payer expense.
A family of four, two adults and two children that earn $20 per hour ($41,600 per year) will receive 773 taxpayer dollars. This is true even if they had no taxes withheld from their paycheck throughout the year. If they had some payroll tax withheld during the year they would get back every penny they had withheld.
Thanks to a system that has the Earned Income Tax Credit and is totally socialistic, a family of four whose breadwinner earns $20 per hour would have no tax liability and would actually receive welfare from the federal government in the amount of $773.
President Gerald Ford created the earned Income Tax Credit in 1975 and it has been expanded several times most notably by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. 25 million families (by definition at least 50 million people) received the EITC in 2007 but only 6.6 million of these people were at or below the poverty level (1) which was $25,080 or $12.05 per hour at a 40 hour per week job (2).
In our great country no one should live in poverty and the EITC is a great aid to the poorest of people. The 43.4 million people that earn more than the poverty threshold should not be entitled to someone else’s money. I would consider these 43.4 million people to be zero liability voters that will not vote against the party that provides them other people’s money.
The thing American taxpayers need to realize is this is not a Democrat or Republican creation; this is a Democrat and Republican creation. When they disguise their intentions by claiming to help the poor the politicians are buying votes.
Carl D. Goodson
Clute, TX
www.conservativeCarl.blogspot.com
www.Carldgoodson.com
(1) www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2505
(2) www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh07.html
For my experiment I assumed I had a decent job that paid me $20 per hour which is $41,600 per year with no overtime. I also decided I had a wife that was the most wonderful stay at home mom in the world and took excellent care of my two young children.
I completed form 1040 from the IRS and took the standard deductions, the child tax credit and, since I would qualify under this scenario, the Earned Income Tax Credit. I couldn’t believe the results I was seeing on paper.
Did you know that if you are married and have children and make up to $23.21 per hour or $48,279 per year the government wants to give you some of my money? That’s right. Our fearless leaders, we call them politicians, have determined you deserve a hand out from the federal government at tax payer expense.
A family of four, two adults and two children that earn $20 per hour ($41,600 per year) will receive 773 taxpayer dollars. This is true even if they had no taxes withheld from their paycheck throughout the year. If they had some payroll tax withheld during the year they would get back every penny they had withheld.
Thanks to a system that has the Earned Income Tax Credit and is totally socialistic, a family of four whose breadwinner earns $20 per hour would have no tax liability and would actually receive welfare from the federal government in the amount of $773.
President Gerald Ford created the earned Income Tax Credit in 1975 and it has been expanded several times most notably by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. 25 million families (by definition at least 50 million people) received the EITC in 2007 but only 6.6 million of these people were at or below the poverty level (1) which was $25,080 or $12.05 per hour at a 40 hour per week job (2).
In our great country no one should live in poverty and the EITC is a great aid to the poorest of people. The 43.4 million people that earn more than the poverty threshold should not be entitled to someone else’s money. I would consider these 43.4 million people to be zero liability voters that will not vote against the party that provides them other people’s money.
The thing American taxpayers need to realize is this is not a Democrat or Republican creation; this is a Democrat and Republican creation. When they disguise their intentions by claiming to help the poor the politicians are buying votes.
Carl D. Goodson
Clute, TX
www.conservativeCarl.blogspot.com
www.Carldgoodson.com
(1) www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2505
(2) www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh07.html
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Are Unions in Decline?
Recently, while conducting a signing for my new book at a local store, I was confronted by a patron that became very agitated when he discovered I was a conservative person. This patron began to inform me, in a rather loud attention getting voice, that Ronald Reagan was the worst President to ever lead this country. The main thrust of this man’s tirade was that President Reagan destroyed organized labor.
In response to my questioning he told me his son is in the same union that represented him throughout his working life and is making less money then he did 20 years ago. Refusing to argue with him in a store, I told him that just meant his employers had probably been forced to pay him considerably more than his work was really worth. That seemed to work since he left the store using language I would not want any kids to hear.
My encounter with the union man left me wondering if the unions were indeed in decline. A quick check of the facts reveals that unions are indeed in decline if membership is any indication. Contrary to my liberal antagonist’s claims that President Reagan was the cause is the fact that membership has been spiraling downward since it reached its peak in 1954 with 39% of the work force (1). In 1983 membership was 20% and has steadily fallen to 12% today (2).
Membership numbers are only one way to measure union strength. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) donated $13.5 million to President Obama’s 2008 campaign (3). The United Auto Workers Union (UAW) spent $4.9 million helping Obama get elected (4). What does $18.4 million dollars buy from a newly elected President?
If you are a member of the UAW you now own 65% of Chrysler and almost 11% of General Motors even though shareholders and creditors received only pennies on the dollar for their investments or supplies and parts (5).
This morning I awoke to find our President had negotiated an agreement with organized labor, mainly the SEIU and the AFL-CIO, about the proposed 40% tax on the “Cadillac” health care insurance plans. It seems union members whose contract was settled under collective bargaining are exempt from the tax I will be paying for my insurance policy.
During his campaign for the Presidency, Obama promised me I would not experience any tax increases because I earn less than $80,000 per year. I guess I will put this promise with the one to let C-SPAN cover the health care negotiations.
I wish I could see my liberal antagonist again to reassure him the unions are more powerful than ever. They have a President in their pocket.
Carl D. Goodson
Clute, TX
(1) www.jstor.org/pss/2523761
(2) www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm
(3) www.sacbee.com/statistic/weblogs/the_state_worker/2008/10/column-extra-your-money-and-pr.html
(4) www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/UAWs-only-GOP-Senate-donation-last-cycle-Arlen-Specter-Chrysler-Rattner-44448422.html
(5) www.newsweek.com/id/200194
In response to my questioning he told me his son is in the same union that represented him throughout his working life and is making less money then he did 20 years ago. Refusing to argue with him in a store, I told him that just meant his employers had probably been forced to pay him considerably more than his work was really worth. That seemed to work since he left the store using language I would not want any kids to hear.
My encounter with the union man left me wondering if the unions were indeed in decline. A quick check of the facts reveals that unions are indeed in decline if membership is any indication. Contrary to my liberal antagonist’s claims that President Reagan was the cause is the fact that membership has been spiraling downward since it reached its peak in 1954 with 39% of the work force (1). In 1983 membership was 20% and has steadily fallen to 12% today (2).
Membership numbers are only one way to measure union strength. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) donated $13.5 million to President Obama’s 2008 campaign (3). The United Auto Workers Union (UAW) spent $4.9 million helping Obama get elected (4). What does $18.4 million dollars buy from a newly elected President?
If you are a member of the UAW you now own 65% of Chrysler and almost 11% of General Motors even though shareholders and creditors received only pennies on the dollar for their investments or supplies and parts (5).
This morning I awoke to find our President had negotiated an agreement with organized labor, mainly the SEIU and the AFL-CIO, about the proposed 40% tax on the “Cadillac” health care insurance plans. It seems union members whose contract was settled under collective bargaining are exempt from the tax I will be paying for my insurance policy.
During his campaign for the Presidency, Obama promised me I would not experience any tax increases because I earn less than $80,000 per year. I guess I will put this promise with the one to let C-SPAN cover the health care negotiations.
I wish I could see my liberal antagonist again to reassure him the unions are more powerful than ever. They have a President in their pocket.
Carl D. Goodson
Clute, TX
(1) www.jstor.org/pss/2523761
(2) www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm
(3) www.sacbee.com/statistic/weblogs/the_state_worker/2008/10/column-extra-your-money-and-pr.html
(4) www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/UAWs-only-GOP-Senate-donation-last-cycle-Arlen-Specter-Chrysler-Rattner-44448422.html
(5) www.newsweek.com/id/200194
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
