The Trump tax proposal is short but far from sweet. I found the one page release too ludicrous to laugh at. Breakdowns of what is included are available from multiple sources such as NBC News and CNN Money. To me the biggest take away is how this budget it obviously a rich man's attempt at living on a budget, and failing miserably.
Let's imagine for a moment that the Federal government is an individual trying to make their way in the world. An individual needs money to live off of in the same way the government needs money to perform its essential functions. An individual must pay their bills, buy food, and generally have some money to put into savings and for entertainment in the same way the government has bills to pay, programs to fund, etc. If an individual uses more money than they bring in they go into debt, the same as our federal government. The average, middle class American should about break even with their income vs. spending. If that individual made the voluntary decision to reduce their income substantially but still insisted on maintaining their same spending habits they would be insane, but that is exactly what Trump has set forth to do. He obviously has no understanding of living within your means.
In March I wrote about Trump's Fiscal Year 2018 plan. In this plan he states that he will not raise the national debt but his final numbers do not show any reduction in national spending either. His tax plan, on the other hand, reduces taxes across the board, especially for businesses and the wealthy, without providing any substantial and continuing replacement for the lost funding. This is just as insane as the hypothetical individual above who spends the same even though their income is drastically cut. Supposedly a hard line was taken on the budget but should not an equally hard line be taken on taxes?
Supposedly the cut in taxes will be made up for by economic growth. Even if it was possible to fill the financial gap in this way it would be years before the economy could adjust to fully make up for the cuts. During those intervening years without substantial budget cuts and/or some sort of transitional tax revenue our national debt will balloon even more than it already has.
Trying to get inside Trump's head (a horrifying thought) can only lead me to believe that this plan was designed to provide the greatest possible benefit to Trump personally. Who else could possibly stand to benefit more than people like Trump when you slash the business tax from 35% to 15% and reduce personal income tax from 39.6% to 35% for the highest wage earners? He may also be attempting to salvage his abysmal approval ratings by doing a whitewashed tax cut regardless of the consequences. His obvious love of the lime light would support this second theory.
I would also like to point out his use of the term "death tax" instead of the official term "estate tax" in the release. This is an obvious propaganda ploy to draw a negative connotation to the tax. A tax, it should be known, that only effects estates with a value greater than $5.5 million. In other words estates belonging to people like the Trumps, not middle class Americans and certainly not those of low income.
With just a very basic outline to go off of it may be too soon to tell, but it definitely does not start the tax debate off on the right foot.
Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Saturday, April 29, 2017
Sunday, April 16, 2017
Valuing Families
I've been fighting political burn out badly these last couple weeks as things continue to trudge on with too many political gaffes and policy blunders to fully account for. I've turned to my safe haven of books for solace. First with "The Next America" which I reviewed just a few days ago and now with Hillary Clinton's infamous "It Takes a Village." I plan to post a full review once I've finished it with the intent of either verifying or debunking much of the propaganda surrounding the book but so far I've only made it through chapter one. There is a particular quote in this early chapter that has inspired today's post:
To start I want to make sure we're all talking about the same thing when we say families. By families I am referring to people who are bound together by love, blood, and obligation. This includes those with and without children, all ages, races, religions, and genders. A family should be counted regardless of marital status, incorporating single parents, step family, married couples, and cohabiting partners. A family can be as little as two people but has no upper limit as it may come to include extended family and branch through three and even four generations. Even roommates with no romantic entanglement may be considered a family when they rely on each other for support in their daily lives. I would define family in the broadest of terms as two or more people who directly rely on one another for mental, emotional, and physical (including financial) support.
Now, on a governmental level, how should we value families? This can be accomplished by removing barriers and ensuring that every family has equal access to being healthy, safe, and financially secure. Seems simple doesn't it? Most things do when considered in their most general form. The difficulty comes in the details but hopefully this has given us a good starting position to examine what real actions our government should be taking to make this a reality for all Americans.
Health- I've treated the issue of health care in America in a previous post so here I will just attempt to sum things up. The greatest barrier to quality health care in America is financial. To remove this barrier necessitates a complete overhaul of our current system to make sure that any time a citizen needs to go to the doctor, get medication, or have a procedure done they are able to do so without undue financial burden. The government should also be pursuing scientific research to expand our knowledge of the human body, develop new treatments/medications for illnesses, better understand nutrition, and investigate environmental factors that influence human health. Policies and regulations should be written to improve and protect human health to the greatest extent possible.
Safety- This topic has two key elements, prevention and protection. It also has two scopes, domestic and international. International prevention is obtained through building allies, intelligence gathering, and supporting at risk nations to harbor good relationships abroad. International protection comes through direct military action. Domestic prevention takes the form of community building, education, and economic development. Domestic protection takes the form of police/fire services as well as the jail/prison system. Smart domestic policies start by recognizing that prevention is a form of supporting families which leads to a decreased need for protection services. Policies must be formed and action taken to remove the substantial bias, particularly in regards to race, that permeates our criminal justice system. Sentencing must be appropriate to the crime and applied equally to all perpetrators. Action must also be taken to reduce recidivism through education and community support to ensure offenders are given the opportunity to create/reunite their families and become productive members of society.
Financial Security- This topic is related to the two above but also stands on its own. I am not advocating a "welfare for all" system but rather a system that makes sure the basic needs, such as food and shelter, of every American are being met while providing every citizen the ability to achieve financial success and the American dream. A large part of this can be taken as a "teach a man to fish" style philosophy. When we provide citizens of this country with the highest quality of education, from kindergarten all the way through higher education, we are giving the greatest number of individuals the opportunity to succeed. I would also advocate funding not just Universities and Community Colleges but also quality trade schools and apprenticeship programs to make sure the workers of the future are diversified across all sectors of the economy. Actions to stabilize and grow the economy should be a perennial item on Congress' to do list. We must also learn to be adaptable in the face of a changing economic landscape. As some industries grow and others decay the government must be prepared to transition the nation's workforce instead of clinging to outdated industries until communities collapse under their own weight.
Talking about family values can sometimes be a picture of The Simpson's Helen Lovejoy shouting "Think of the children" but it doesn't have to be. Smart governmental policies protect individuals and families of all types without getting into unnecessary moral quandaries. If politicians were to set their minds solely on valuing families we would come a long way towards improving the everyday lives of Americans across the board.
"A nation that doesn't just espouse family values but values families and children."This quote has struck home with me as, more than 20 years after the first printing, it seems our government does more and more of the former and far too little of the latter. This is clearly evidenced in the sorry state of our education system and Congress seeking health care reforms that would cause millions to lose their health insurance. We hear plenty about family values, often with "traditional" leading the statement, but let's take the time to flip the coin and ask the question just how do we value families?
To start I want to make sure we're all talking about the same thing when we say families. By families I am referring to people who are bound together by love, blood, and obligation. This includes those with and without children, all ages, races, religions, and genders. A family should be counted regardless of marital status, incorporating single parents, step family, married couples, and cohabiting partners. A family can be as little as two people but has no upper limit as it may come to include extended family and branch through three and even four generations. Even roommates with no romantic entanglement may be considered a family when they rely on each other for support in their daily lives. I would define family in the broadest of terms as two or more people who directly rely on one another for mental, emotional, and physical (including financial) support.
Now, on a governmental level, how should we value families? This can be accomplished by removing barriers and ensuring that every family has equal access to being healthy, safe, and financially secure. Seems simple doesn't it? Most things do when considered in their most general form. The difficulty comes in the details but hopefully this has given us a good starting position to examine what real actions our government should be taking to make this a reality for all Americans.
Health- I've treated the issue of health care in America in a previous post so here I will just attempt to sum things up. The greatest barrier to quality health care in America is financial. To remove this barrier necessitates a complete overhaul of our current system to make sure that any time a citizen needs to go to the doctor, get medication, or have a procedure done they are able to do so without undue financial burden. The government should also be pursuing scientific research to expand our knowledge of the human body, develop new treatments/medications for illnesses, better understand nutrition, and investigate environmental factors that influence human health. Policies and regulations should be written to improve and protect human health to the greatest extent possible.
Safety- This topic has two key elements, prevention and protection. It also has two scopes, domestic and international. International prevention is obtained through building allies, intelligence gathering, and supporting at risk nations to harbor good relationships abroad. International protection comes through direct military action. Domestic prevention takes the form of community building, education, and economic development. Domestic protection takes the form of police/fire services as well as the jail/prison system. Smart domestic policies start by recognizing that prevention is a form of supporting families which leads to a decreased need for protection services. Policies must be formed and action taken to remove the substantial bias, particularly in regards to race, that permeates our criminal justice system. Sentencing must be appropriate to the crime and applied equally to all perpetrators. Action must also be taken to reduce recidivism through education and community support to ensure offenders are given the opportunity to create/reunite their families and become productive members of society.
Financial Security- This topic is related to the two above but also stands on its own. I am not advocating a "welfare for all" system but rather a system that makes sure the basic needs, such as food and shelter, of every American are being met while providing every citizen the ability to achieve financial success and the American dream. A large part of this can be taken as a "teach a man to fish" style philosophy. When we provide citizens of this country with the highest quality of education, from kindergarten all the way through higher education, we are giving the greatest number of individuals the opportunity to succeed. I would also advocate funding not just Universities and Community Colleges but also quality trade schools and apprenticeship programs to make sure the workers of the future are diversified across all sectors of the economy. Actions to stabilize and grow the economy should be a perennial item on Congress' to do list. We must also learn to be adaptable in the face of a changing economic landscape. As some industries grow and others decay the government must be prepared to transition the nation's workforce instead of clinging to outdated industries until communities collapse under their own weight.
Talking about family values can sometimes be a picture of The Simpson's Helen Lovejoy shouting "Think of the children" but it doesn't have to be. Smart governmental policies protect individuals and families of all types without getting into unnecessary moral quandaries. If politicians were to set their minds solely on valuing families we would come a long way towards improving the everyday lives of Americans across the board.
Saturday, March 18, 2017
Fiscal Year 2017
The President has just released a partial budget proposal for the 2018 fiscal year and I have taken the last few days to examine just what it entails. The President's message at the beginning of this proposal states the following:
Because of it's length I have included my full synopsis of the budget proposal at the end of this post. For my actual analysis I would like to highlight my top 5 concerns with this budget:
1) Fear tactic defense spending
2) Threats to the poor, seniors, and people with disabilities
3) Reckless environmental actions
4) Dissolution of public education
5) Disintegration of arts and sciences
Here is my analysis:
1) Fear tactic defense spending
One of the most basic and agreed upon responsibilities of the Federal government is to provide for a national defense. That being said, the US already has the greatest military spending in the world by a substantial margin. In fact, we spend more to fund our military than the next 7 countries combined, 34% of the world's military spending. While every other area on the budget has significant emphasis on efficiency and reducing redundancy this seemingly does not apply to defense spending.
I have no issues with the comparatively moderate increases to the Department of Veteran's Affairs, but the Department of Defense already has nearly 10 times the budget of the next largest department and is set to receive an additional 10% boost to funding. If there was any area where efficiency and redundancy should be looked at for cost saving measures it should be here. However, that is apparently not the President's plan. The President's obsession with winning has resulted in him stating:
He keeps pressing this idea of how insecure our nation is but, I don't know about you, but I don't feel unsafe or in imminent threat from foreigners. Granted, I don't have access to top secret threat analysis data, but we will never be 100% secure and, while prevention is important, strength at home can mean a lot more than military might. Investments in education, infrastructure, and health care can go a lot farther towards improving the daily quality of life for Americans than stockpiling weapons for some vague possibility of threat. The President's proposed increase in military spending to the detriment of other fundamental programs does not speak of a man wishing to "make America great" it says to me that he wants to keep America in fear.
People living in fear find it harder to make rational decisions and are more easily provoked. Teaching the American people to live in fear, which seems to be the President's plan, puts us at risk of turning against each other. It is essential for communities to band together for their own betterment and be constantly critical of the real reason the President wants such a large military power under his control.
2) Threats to the poor, seniors, and people with disabilities
The President's plan calls for substantial cuts to programs that assist the poor, seniors, and people with disabilities. Just a partial list includes the following:
Eliminates:
-Economic Development Administration- encourages economic development in depressed regions
-Federal Supplemental Education Opportunity Grant- grants to college students with financial need
-Low Income Home Energy Assistance- assists families with energy costs
-Community Services Block Grant- funds programs for low-income individuals
-Community Development Block Grant- for the development of viable urban communities
-Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing- assists communities in developing affordable housing
-HOME Investment Partnerships Program- low-income housing assistance
-Choice Neighborhoods- assisting struggling neighborhoods
-Self-help Homeownership Opportunity Program- grants to non profits who build low-income housing
-Senior Community Service Employment Program- job training for low-income, unemployed seniors
Reduces:
WIC
Work study
Department of Health and Human Services
Job training grants
Office of Disability Employment Policy
Job Corp
Also, while the budget protects funding to IDEA, which is an agency to protect disabled students under the Department of Education, the institution of vouchers, also outlined in the budget, will put disabled students at risk (see my previous post on education vouchers here). There is also the proposed health care bill, which I have not yet covered but seems to be implied in the substantial cuts to the Department of Health and Human Services, which may result in millions of Americans losing their coverage.
The justification for much of these cuts seems to fall into one of two categories: reducing overlap or that a program is better provided by the states. The former excuse fails on two fronts as many grant programs have specific requirements with slight variations that mean organizations qualify for some but not others though at first look the grants may appear to overlap each other in purpose. It also fails in that it reduces overlap but fails to supplement the remaining programs to ensure continued coverage. The secondary excuse fails because states will be required to make up for the loss of Federal funding which will result in an increase in American taxes on the state level or cuts to programs. In any case these cuts will most likely have a direct impact on some of America's most vulnerable citizens
3) Reckless environmental actions
Not much needs to be said on this front. The President has made it clear that he plans to take no action to prevent climate change and has outlined said goals in his budget. He has also set forth in his budget to strip much of the EPA and give authority instead to the states. Considering there are several bills currently pending in Congress to allow states to permit things like fracking this is a dangerous trend. The actions of one state on the environment can have an effect on the entire nation and so it is important that as a nation we stand together on environmental issues.
4) Dissolution of education system
I have already posted at length about the dangers of voucher programs and much of the threat in the current budget comes from stripping the Department of Education and putting funds instead into so called school choice programs. The budget goes further however in reducing grants and work study programs for college students and doing away with other training programs that insure the public receives quality education to be productive members of society.
5) Disintegration of arts and sciences
Related to education but serving a separate roll, the President seems intent on removing all arts and sciences from the national scene. Between reducing or completely eliminating funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, public libraries, national heritage areas, and wildlife refuges among other programs he is dismantling much of the vibrancy of our nation. Some, possibly many, of these programs will survive, but the cost will be an additional financial burden at the state and local level with no reduction of Federal obligations.
My final thoughts as I turn you over to my lengthy synopsis are these:
If the President's goal is to make America great his budget is misguided at best, dangerous at worst. National defense is important but without real justification to increase spending the precious dollars in the hands of our government should be going to grow our economy and infrastructure and protect the most vulnerable among us. We need to tell Congress and the President that they can, and in fact must, do better.
Department of Agriculture
- $4.7 billion reduction (21%)
- Fully funds Food Safety and Inspection Service
- $6.2 billion to WIC (reduction of $400 million)
- $2.4 wildland fire preparedness and suppression- fully funded
- Reduces funding for National Forest System "lower priority activities"
- $350 million for farmer-focused research
- Reduces funding for statistical capabilities while maintaining funding for the Census for Agriculture
- Eliminates duplicate water and wastewater loan and grant program ($498 million) stating that rural communities can be serviced by the private sector or other funds such as the EPA's State Revolving Funds
- Reduce staffing to the USDA Service Center Agencies to reflect reduced workload and encourage private sector conservation
- Eliminate discretionary activities of the Rural Business and Cooperative Service ($95 million)
- Eliminate McGovern-Dole International Food for Education
Department of Commerce
- $1.5 billion reduction (16%)
- Strengthen International Trade Administration enforcement and compliance functions while reducing export promotion and trade analysis
- Increase of $100 million to Census Bureau to prepare for the 2020 Census
- Consolidates parts of the Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau, and Department of Commerce's Office of the Secretary
- Eliminate Economic Development Administration ($221 million)
- Eliminates the Minority Business Development Agency
- Discontinue Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program ($124 million)
- Eliminates certain National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration grants and programs ($250 million)
- Maintains polar orbiting and geostationary satellites for weather forecasting
- Savings from the Polar Follow On program by utilizing commercial data
- Maintains National Weather Service forecasting with $1 billion in investments
- Maintains National Telecommunication and Information Administration
Department of Defense
- $52 billion increase (10%)
- Repeal of defense sequestration plus an additional $2 billion in funding
- Providing resources to "accelerate the defeat of ISIS"
- Use funds for war fighting readiness
- Increase/improve training, equipment, and infrastructure
- "Lays the groundwork for a larger, more capable, and more lethal joint force"
- Reduce cost of military programs wherever "feasible"
- Rebuild readiness of US Army
- Increase number of Navy ships- "This budget reflects a down payment on the President's commitment to expanding the fleet"
- Ensure a ready and fully equipped Marine Corps
- Invest in Air Force maintenance, training, and additional F-35 Joint Strike Firghters
Department of Education
- $9 billion reduction (13%)
- Increase funding for school choice such as private and charter schools ($1.4 billion)
- Maintains current IDEA funding for students with disabilities
- Eliminates Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants program ($2.4 billion)
- Eliminates 21st Century Community Learning Centers program ($1.2 billion)
- Eliminates Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant ($732 million)
- Maintains the Pell Grant while cancelling $3.9 billion in unobligated carryover funding
- Maintains funding for programs that serve high percentage minority students
- Significant reduction to Federal Work Study
- Reduce Federal TRIO Programs and GEAR UP (reduction of $193 million)
- Reduce or eliminate over 20 additional programs including Striving Readers, Teacher Quality Partnership, Impact Aid Support Payments for Federal Property, and International Education programs
Department of Energy
- $1.7 billion reduction (5.6%) however a $1.4 billion increase to the National Nuclear Security Administration (11%)
- Restart Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository ($120 million)
- Eliminate defense sequestration for the National Nuclear Security Administration
- $6.5 billion to the Environmental Management program to clean up nuclear waste
- Eliminates the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program, and the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program
- Prioritization of projects within the Office of Science (reduction of $900 million)
- Limits scope of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Office of Nuclear Energy, the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, and the Fossil Energy Research and Development program as well as eliminating the Weatherization Assistance Program and State Energy Program (reduction of $2 billion)
- Support cyber security and grid resiliency within the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
- Continues and enhances research, development, and construction of expanded Navy fleet
Department of Health and Human Services
- $15.1 billion reduction (17.9%)
- Maintain direct health care services such as community health centers
- Increase Health Care Fraud and Abuse Program funding by $70 million
- Support "efficient operations" of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program
- Increase opioid misuse prevention efforts and access to treatment and recovery services ($500 million)
- Increase the FDA medical product user fees (revenue increase of $1 billion)
- Reduce National Institute of Health ($5.8 billion) including eliminating the Fogarty International Center and consolidating the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
- Creates a new Federal Emergency Response Fund and a new $500 million block grant within the CDC
- Invest in "high-performing entities" to focus on "high priority" mental health activities
- Eliminate some health and nurse training programs ($403 million)
- Eliminate discretionary programs in the Office of Community Service including the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and the Community Services Block Grant ($4.2 billion)
Department of Homeland Security
- $2.8 billion increase (6.8%)
- $2.6 billion for border security technology including planning of a border wall
- $324 million to recruit, hire, and train Border Patrol, ICE Agents, and support staff
- Increase funding for detention, transport, and removal of illegal immigrants ($1.5 billion)
- Mandatory implementation of nationwide E-Verify usage for employers ($15 million)
- Safeguard cyber space ($1.5 billion)
- Increase Passenger Security Fee to recover 75% of TSA operation costs and eliminate NFIP's Flood Hazard Mapping Program ($190 million)
- Eliminate or reduce FEMA state and local grant funding and require a 25% non-Federal cost match for preparedness grants ($667 million)
- Eliminate or reduce certain TSA programs ($80 million)
Department of Housing and Urban Development
- $6.2 billion reduction (13.2%)
- Provides $35 billion for HUD rental assistance programs
- Eliminates the Community Development Block Grant ($3 billion)
- Eliminate "low priority" programs such as HOME Investment Partnerships Program, Choice Neighborhoods, and the Self-help Homeownership Opportunity Program ($1.1 billion)
- Increase funding to promote lead-safe homes ($20 million)
- Eliminate Section 4 Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing ($35 million)
- Support FHA mortgage insurance programs
Department of the Interior
- $1.5 billion reduction (12%)
- Increase funding to develop energy on public land and streamline permitting
- Maintains Office of Natural Resources Revenue
- Eliminates "lower priority" programs including Abandoned Mine Land grants, National Heritage Areas, and National Wildlife Refuge payments
- Maintains "stewardship capacity" operations for National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management
- Maintains tribal sovereignty and self-determination but reduces funds for "more recent" projects and initiatives that only serve a few tribes
- Reduces funds for land acquisition ($120 million)
- Increases funding for deferred maintenance but overall reduces funds for construction and major maintenance programs in National Park Service
- Provides $900 million for US Geological Survey
- Public/private matching plan for wildlife conservation, historic preservation, and recreation grants
- Maintain wildland fire suppression funding
- $1 billion for water resource management in western US
- Minor reduction to Payments in Lieu of Taxes program
Department of Justice
- $1.1 billion reduction (3.8%)
- Increase FBI funding ($249 million)
- Increase law enforcement component funding ($175 million)
- Link prosecutors and intelligence attorneys with investigations and the intelligence community
- Increase number of immigration judges ($80 million)
- Increase number of border enforcement prosecutors and deputy US Marshals
- Increase number of attorneys for immigration legislation and for obtaining land for border wall
- Increases detention space ($171 million)
- Maintain grants to protect state, local, and tribal law enforcement as well as grants for victims of crime
- Eliminates outdated programs ($700 million)
- Reduce prison construction spending (estimated almost $1 billion) however, provides $80 million for prison activation and $113 million for repair and modernization (Net reduction estimate of $800 million)
- Increase bankruptcy-filing fees ($150 million in increased revenue)
Department of Labor
- $2.5 billion reduction (21%)
- Expands Reemployment and Eligibility Assessments
- Reduce certain job training grants including elimination of the Senior Community Service Employment Program ($434 million)
- Eliminates Bureau of International Labor Affairs grant funding ($60 million)
- Closes low performing Job Corps locations
- Decreases funding for job training and employment services
- Fund states to expand apprenticeships
- Refocus the Office of Disability Employment Policy with less funding for technical assistance grants and more funding for early intervention projects
- Eliminates OSHA training grants ($11 million)
Department of State, USAID, and Treasury International Programs
- $10.1 billion reduction (28%) for Department of State and USAID, $12 billion to fund Overseas Contingency Operations, and $803 million reduction (35%) for Treasury International Programs
- Maintains embassy security and core diplomatic functions with $2.2 billion towards embassy construction and maintenance
- Increases funding to $3.1 billion for Israel security assistance
- Eliminates Global Climate Change Initiative and ends all funding to UN climate change programs
- Maintains funds to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance
- Maintains funding for AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria programs
- Turn some foreign assistance from grants to loans
- Reduce funding for international peacekeeping operations, cap contributions to UN at 25% of peacekeeping costs
- Adjust economic and development assistance to countries that are of greater strategic importance to the US
- Eliminates Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance
- Reduces funding to Educational and Cultural Exchange programs and focuses remaining funds on the Fulbright Program
- Eliminates certain peacekeeping and security building efforts including the Complex Crisis Fund and small organizations that also have non Federal funds such as the East-West Center
- Consolidates and Reorganizes the DOS and USAID
- Reduces funding of development banks such as the World Bank ($650 million over 3 years)
Department of Transportation
- $2.4 billion reduction (13%)
- Privatize air traffic control
- Reduce Amtrak subsidies, particularly those associated with long distance service
- Only allocate funds for currently approved grants under the Capital Investment Program (New Starts)
- Eliminates Essential Air Service funding ($175 million)
- Eliminates TIGER grant program ($499 million)
Department of the Treasury
- $519 million reduction (4.1%)
- Preserve IRS funding but reduce paper based review ($239 million)
- Enhance cyber security capabilities
- Prioritize funds for economic enforcement tools
- Eliminate Community Development Financial Institutions Fund grants ($210 million)
- End taxpayer bailouts and advance financial regulatory reform
- Reduce federal workforce
Department of Veterans Affairs
- $4.4 billion increase (6%)
- Increase $4.6 billion to improve VA health care
- Extend and fund Veterans Choice Program- set to expire in August 2017
- Fund programs to aid homeless and at-risk veterans
- Fund programs to assist veterans transitioning to civilian life
- Continue funding efforts to optimize the VA claims process
- Fund IT systems to improve quality of services
Environmental Protection Agency
- $2.6 billion reduction (31%) including the elimination of 3,200 jobs
- Marginal increase to funding for drinking and wastewater infrastructure including the State Revolving Funds and Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act ($4 million)
- Defunds the Clean Power Plan and climate change initiatives ($100 million)
- Reduce Hazardous Substance Superfund Account ($330 million)
- Reduce EPA enforcement budget to focus on programs not delegated to the States ($419 million)
- Reduce Office of Research and Development activities by half ($233 million)
- Reduce Categorical Grants ($482 million)
- Eliminate region specific efforts such as Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and Chesapeake Bay ($427 million)
- Eliminates more than 50 additional programs deemed low priority or poorly performing including Energy Star and infrastructure assistance to Alaska Native Villages and the Mexico Border ($347 million)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
- Funded at $19.1 billion (0.8% decrease)
- Increase use of public-private partnerships
- Allocates $624 million for aeronautics research
- Allocates $1.9 billion for the Planetary Science Program but no funding for a mission to land on Europa
- Allocates $3.7 billion to send astronauts into deep space but cancels the Asteroid Redirect Mission
- Allocates $1.8 billion for Earth science portfolio, eliminates PACE, OCO-3, DSCOVR, and CLARREO missions as well as reducing Earth science grants ($102 million)
- Eliminates Office of Education ($115)
- Restructures robotic satellite refueling demonstration mission ($88 million)
- Strengthen cyber security capabilities
Small Business Administration
- $43.2 million reduction (5%)
- Maintain loan guarantees
- Reduce duplication and coordinate best practices for outreach center programs
- Maintain disaster relief lending
- Eliminate grant programs covered by the private sector ($12 million)
- Provide training and support for transitioning veterans towards business ownership
- Maintain funding for microloan financing
- Ensure SBA can advocate and assist small businesses in accessing government contracts and research opportunities
Our aim is to meet the simple, but crucial demand of our citizens- a Government that puts the needs of it's own people first. When we do that, we will set free the dreams of every American, and we will begin a new chapter of American greatness.Today I will endeavor to show just what the President means by our "own people" and how he thinks he can "set free the dreams of every American." You be the judge...
Because of it's length I have included my full synopsis of the budget proposal at the end of this post. For my actual analysis I would like to highlight my top 5 concerns with this budget:
1) Fear tactic defense spending
2) Threats to the poor, seniors, and people with disabilities
3) Reckless environmental actions
4) Dissolution of public education
5) Disintegration of arts and sciences
Here is my analysis:
1) Fear tactic defense spending
One of the most basic and agreed upon responsibilities of the Federal government is to provide for a national defense. That being said, the US already has the greatest military spending in the world by a substantial margin. In fact, we spend more to fund our military than the next 7 countries combined, 34% of the world's military spending. While every other area on the budget has significant emphasis on efficiency and reducing redundancy this seemingly does not apply to defense spending.
I have no issues with the comparatively moderate increases to the Department of Veteran's Affairs, but the Department of Defense already has nearly 10 times the budget of the next largest department and is set to receive an additional 10% boost to funding. If there was any area where efficiency and redundancy should be looked at for cost saving measures it should be here. However, that is apparently not the President's plan. The President's obsession with winning has resulted in him stating:
Lays the groundwork for a larger, more capable, and more lethal joint force, driven by... the need for American superiority not only on land, at sea, in the air, and in space, but also in cyberspace.This choice of words is chilling to me. Even in military operations more death should never be the objective. He states further on that the investment of more Navy ships is only a "down payment" suggesting that there is much more to come.
He keeps pressing this idea of how insecure our nation is but, I don't know about you, but I don't feel unsafe or in imminent threat from foreigners. Granted, I don't have access to top secret threat analysis data, but we will never be 100% secure and, while prevention is important, strength at home can mean a lot more than military might. Investments in education, infrastructure, and health care can go a lot farther towards improving the daily quality of life for Americans than stockpiling weapons for some vague possibility of threat. The President's proposed increase in military spending to the detriment of other fundamental programs does not speak of a man wishing to "make America great" it says to me that he wants to keep America in fear.
People living in fear find it harder to make rational decisions and are more easily provoked. Teaching the American people to live in fear, which seems to be the President's plan, puts us at risk of turning against each other. It is essential for communities to band together for their own betterment and be constantly critical of the real reason the President wants such a large military power under his control.
2) Threats to the poor, seniors, and people with disabilities
The President's plan calls for substantial cuts to programs that assist the poor, seniors, and people with disabilities. Just a partial list includes the following:
Eliminates:
-Economic Development Administration- encourages economic development in depressed regions
-Federal Supplemental Education Opportunity Grant- grants to college students with financial need
-Low Income Home Energy Assistance- assists families with energy costs
-Community Services Block Grant- funds programs for low-income individuals
-Community Development Block Grant- for the development of viable urban communities
-Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing- assists communities in developing affordable housing
-HOME Investment Partnerships Program- low-income housing assistance
-Choice Neighborhoods- assisting struggling neighborhoods
-Self-help Homeownership Opportunity Program- grants to non profits who build low-income housing
-Senior Community Service Employment Program- job training for low-income, unemployed seniors
Reduces:
WIC
Work study
Department of Health and Human Services
Job training grants
Office of Disability Employment Policy
Job Corp
Also, while the budget protects funding to IDEA, which is an agency to protect disabled students under the Department of Education, the institution of vouchers, also outlined in the budget, will put disabled students at risk (see my previous post on education vouchers here). There is also the proposed health care bill, which I have not yet covered but seems to be implied in the substantial cuts to the Department of Health and Human Services, which may result in millions of Americans losing their coverage.
The justification for much of these cuts seems to fall into one of two categories: reducing overlap or that a program is better provided by the states. The former excuse fails on two fronts as many grant programs have specific requirements with slight variations that mean organizations qualify for some but not others though at first look the grants may appear to overlap each other in purpose. It also fails in that it reduces overlap but fails to supplement the remaining programs to ensure continued coverage. The secondary excuse fails because states will be required to make up for the loss of Federal funding which will result in an increase in American taxes on the state level or cuts to programs. In any case these cuts will most likely have a direct impact on some of America's most vulnerable citizens
3) Reckless environmental actions
Not much needs to be said on this front. The President has made it clear that he plans to take no action to prevent climate change and has outlined said goals in his budget. He has also set forth in his budget to strip much of the EPA and give authority instead to the states. Considering there are several bills currently pending in Congress to allow states to permit things like fracking this is a dangerous trend. The actions of one state on the environment can have an effect on the entire nation and so it is important that as a nation we stand together on environmental issues.
4) Dissolution of education system
I have already posted at length about the dangers of voucher programs and much of the threat in the current budget comes from stripping the Department of Education and putting funds instead into so called school choice programs. The budget goes further however in reducing grants and work study programs for college students and doing away with other training programs that insure the public receives quality education to be productive members of society.
5) Disintegration of arts and sciences
Related to education but serving a separate roll, the President seems intent on removing all arts and sciences from the national scene. Between reducing or completely eliminating funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, public libraries, national heritage areas, and wildlife refuges among other programs he is dismantling much of the vibrancy of our nation. Some, possibly many, of these programs will survive, but the cost will be an additional financial burden at the state and local level with no reduction of Federal obligations.
My final thoughts as I turn you over to my lengthy synopsis are these:
If the President's goal is to make America great his budget is misguided at best, dangerous at worst. National defense is important but without real justification to increase spending the precious dollars in the hands of our government should be going to grow our economy and infrastructure and protect the most vulnerable among us. We need to tell Congress and the President that they can, and in fact must, do better.
Proposed Budget Synopsis
Department of Agriculture
- $4.7 billion reduction (21%)
- Fully funds Food Safety and Inspection Service
- $6.2 billion to WIC (reduction of $400 million)
- $2.4 wildland fire preparedness and suppression- fully funded
- Reduces funding for National Forest System "lower priority activities"
- $350 million for farmer-focused research
- Reduces funding for statistical capabilities while maintaining funding for the Census for Agriculture
- Eliminates duplicate water and wastewater loan and grant program ($498 million) stating that rural communities can be serviced by the private sector or other funds such as the EPA's State Revolving Funds
- Reduce staffing to the USDA Service Center Agencies to reflect reduced workload and encourage private sector conservation
- Eliminate discretionary activities of the Rural Business and Cooperative Service ($95 million)
- Eliminate McGovern-Dole International Food for Education
Department of Commerce
- $1.5 billion reduction (16%)
- Strengthen International Trade Administration enforcement and compliance functions while reducing export promotion and trade analysis
- Increase of $100 million to Census Bureau to prepare for the 2020 Census
- Consolidates parts of the Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau, and Department of Commerce's Office of the Secretary
- Eliminate Economic Development Administration ($221 million)
- Eliminates the Minority Business Development Agency
- Discontinue Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program ($124 million)
- Eliminates certain National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration grants and programs ($250 million)
- Maintains polar orbiting and geostationary satellites for weather forecasting
- Savings from the Polar Follow On program by utilizing commercial data
- Maintains National Weather Service forecasting with $1 billion in investments
- Maintains National Telecommunication and Information Administration
Department of Defense
- $52 billion increase (10%)
- Repeal of defense sequestration plus an additional $2 billion in funding
- Providing resources to "accelerate the defeat of ISIS"
- Use funds for war fighting readiness
- Increase/improve training, equipment, and infrastructure
- "Lays the groundwork for a larger, more capable, and more lethal joint force"
- Reduce cost of military programs wherever "feasible"
- Rebuild readiness of US Army
- Increase number of Navy ships- "This budget reflects a down payment on the President's commitment to expanding the fleet"
- Ensure a ready and fully equipped Marine Corps
- Invest in Air Force maintenance, training, and additional F-35 Joint Strike Firghters
Department of Education
- $9 billion reduction (13%)
- Increase funding for school choice such as private and charter schools ($1.4 billion)
- Maintains current IDEA funding for students with disabilities
- Eliminates Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants program ($2.4 billion)
- Eliminates 21st Century Community Learning Centers program ($1.2 billion)
- Eliminates Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant ($732 million)
- Maintains the Pell Grant while cancelling $3.9 billion in unobligated carryover funding
- Maintains funding for programs that serve high percentage minority students
- Significant reduction to Federal Work Study
- Reduce Federal TRIO Programs and GEAR UP (reduction of $193 million)
- Reduce or eliminate over 20 additional programs including Striving Readers, Teacher Quality Partnership, Impact Aid Support Payments for Federal Property, and International Education programs
Department of Energy
- $1.7 billion reduction (5.6%) however a $1.4 billion increase to the National Nuclear Security Administration (11%)
- Restart Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository ($120 million)
- Eliminate defense sequestration for the National Nuclear Security Administration
- $6.5 billion to the Environmental Management program to clean up nuclear waste
- Eliminates the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program, and the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program
- Prioritization of projects within the Office of Science (reduction of $900 million)
- Limits scope of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Office of Nuclear Energy, the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, and the Fossil Energy Research and Development program as well as eliminating the Weatherization Assistance Program and State Energy Program (reduction of $2 billion)
- Support cyber security and grid resiliency within the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
- Continues and enhances research, development, and construction of expanded Navy fleet
Department of Health and Human Services
- $15.1 billion reduction (17.9%)
- Maintain direct health care services such as community health centers
- Increase Health Care Fraud and Abuse Program funding by $70 million
- Support "efficient operations" of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program
- Increase opioid misuse prevention efforts and access to treatment and recovery services ($500 million)
- Increase the FDA medical product user fees (revenue increase of $1 billion)
- Reduce National Institute of Health ($5.8 billion) including eliminating the Fogarty International Center and consolidating the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
- Creates a new Federal Emergency Response Fund and a new $500 million block grant within the CDC
- Invest in "high-performing entities" to focus on "high priority" mental health activities
- Eliminate some health and nurse training programs ($403 million)
- Eliminate discretionary programs in the Office of Community Service including the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and the Community Services Block Grant ($4.2 billion)
Department of Homeland Security
- $2.8 billion increase (6.8%)
- $2.6 billion for border security technology including planning of a border wall
- $324 million to recruit, hire, and train Border Patrol, ICE Agents, and support staff
- Increase funding for detention, transport, and removal of illegal immigrants ($1.5 billion)
- Mandatory implementation of nationwide E-Verify usage for employers ($15 million)
- Safeguard cyber space ($1.5 billion)
- Increase Passenger Security Fee to recover 75% of TSA operation costs and eliminate NFIP's Flood Hazard Mapping Program ($190 million)
- Eliminate or reduce FEMA state and local grant funding and require a 25% non-Federal cost match for preparedness grants ($667 million)
- Eliminate or reduce certain TSA programs ($80 million)
Department of Housing and Urban Development
- $6.2 billion reduction (13.2%)
- Provides $35 billion for HUD rental assistance programs
- Eliminates the Community Development Block Grant ($3 billion)
- Eliminate "low priority" programs such as HOME Investment Partnerships Program, Choice Neighborhoods, and the Self-help Homeownership Opportunity Program ($1.1 billion)
- Increase funding to promote lead-safe homes ($20 million)
- Eliminate Section 4 Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing ($35 million)
- Support FHA mortgage insurance programs
Department of the Interior
- $1.5 billion reduction (12%)
- Increase funding to develop energy on public land and streamline permitting
- Maintains Office of Natural Resources Revenue
- Eliminates "lower priority" programs including Abandoned Mine Land grants, National Heritage Areas, and National Wildlife Refuge payments
- Maintains "stewardship capacity" operations for National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management
- Maintains tribal sovereignty and self-determination but reduces funds for "more recent" projects and initiatives that only serve a few tribes
- Reduces funds for land acquisition ($120 million)
- Increases funding for deferred maintenance but overall reduces funds for construction and major maintenance programs in National Park Service
- Provides $900 million for US Geological Survey
- Public/private matching plan for wildlife conservation, historic preservation, and recreation grants
- Maintain wildland fire suppression funding
- $1 billion for water resource management in western US
- Minor reduction to Payments in Lieu of Taxes program
Department of Justice
- $1.1 billion reduction (3.8%)
- Increase FBI funding ($249 million)
- Increase law enforcement component funding ($175 million)
- Link prosecutors and intelligence attorneys with investigations and the intelligence community
- Increase number of immigration judges ($80 million)
- Increase number of border enforcement prosecutors and deputy US Marshals
- Increase number of attorneys for immigration legislation and for obtaining land for border wall
- Increases detention space ($171 million)
- Maintain grants to protect state, local, and tribal law enforcement as well as grants for victims of crime
- Eliminates outdated programs ($700 million)
- Reduce prison construction spending (estimated almost $1 billion) however, provides $80 million for prison activation and $113 million for repair and modernization (Net reduction estimate of $800 million)
- Increase bankruptcy-filing fees ($150 million in increased revenue)
Department of Labor
- $2.5 billion reduction (21%)
- Expands Reemployment and Eligibility Assessments
- Reduce certain job training grants including elimination of the Senior Community Service Employment Program ($434 million)
- Eliminates Bureau of International Labor Affairs grant funding ($60 million)
- Closes low performing Job Corps locations
- Decreases funding for job training and employment services
- Fund states to expand apprenticeships
- Refocus the Office of Disability Employment Policy with less funding for technical assistance grants and more funding for early intervention projects
- Eliminates OSHA training grants ($11 million)
Department of State, USAID, and Treasury International Programs
- $10.1 billion reduction (28%) for Department of State and USAID, $12 billion to fund Overseas Contingency Operations, and $803 million reduction (35%) for Treasury International Programs
- Maintains embassy security and core diplomatic functions with $2.2 billion towards embassy construction and maintenance
- Increases funding to $3.1 billion for Israel security assistance
- Eliminates Global Climate Change Initiative and ends all funding to UN climate change programs
- Maintains funds to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance
- Maintains funding for AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria programs
- Turn some foreign assistance from grants to loans
- Reduce funding for international peacekeeping operations, cap contributions to UN at 25% of peacekeeping costs
- Adjust economic and development assistance to countries that are of greater strategic importance to the US
- Eliminates Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance
- Reduces funding to Educational and Cultural Exchange programs and focuses remaining funds on the Fulbright Program
- Eliminates certain peacekeeping and security building efforts including the Complex Crisis Fund and small organizations that also have non Federal funds such as the East-West Center
- Consolidates and Reorganizes the DOS and USAID
- Reduces funding of development banks such as the World Bank ($650 million over 3 years)
Department of Transportation
- $2.4 billion reduction (13%)
- Privatize air traffic control
- Reduce Amtrak subsidies, particularly those associated with long distance service
- Only allocate funds for currently approved grants under the Capital Investment Program (New Starts)
- Eliminates Essential Air Service funding ($175 million)
- Eliminates TIGER grant program ($499 million)
Department of the Treasury
- $519 million reduction (4.1%)
- Preserve IRS funding but reduce paper based review ($239 million)
- Enhance cyber security capabilities
- Prioritize funds for economic enforcement tools
- Eliminate Community Development Financial Institutions Fund grants ($210 million)
- End taxpayer bailouts and advance financial regulatory reform
- Reduce federal workforce
Department of Veterans Affairs
- $4.4 billion increase (6%)
- Increase $4.6 billion to improve VA health care
- Extend and fund Veterans Choice Program- set to expire in August 2017
- Fund programs to aid homeless and at-risk veterans
- Fund programs to assist veterans transitioning to civilian life
- Continue funding efforts to optimize the VA claims process
- Fund IT systems to improve quality of services
Environmental Protection Agency
- $2.6 billion reduction (31%) including the elimination of 3,200 jobs
- Marginal increase to funding for drinking and wastewater infrastructure including the State Revolving Funds and Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act ($4 million)
- Defunds the Clean Power Plan and climate change initiatives ($100 million)
- Reduce Hazardous Substance Superfund Account ($330 million)
- Reduce EPA enforcement budget to focus on programs not delegated to the States ($419 million)
- Reduce Office of Research and Development activities by half ($233 million)
- Reduce Categorical Grants ($482 million)
- Eliminate region specific efforts such as Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and Chesapeake Bay ($427 million)
- Eliminates more than 50 additional programs deemed low priority or poorly performing including Energy Star and infrastructure assistance to Alaska Native Villages and the Mexico Border ($347 million)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
- Funded at $19.1 billion (0.8% decrease)
- Increase use of public-private partnerships
- Allocates $624 million for aeronautics research
- Allocates $1.9 billion for the Planetary Science Program but no funding for a mission to land on Europa
- Allocates $3.7 billion to send astronauts into deep space but cancels the Asteroid Redirect Mission
- Allocates $1.8 billion for Earth science portfolio, eliminates PACE, OCO-3, DSCOVR, and CLARREO missions as well as reducing Earth science grants ($102 million)
- Eliminates Office of Education ($115)
- Restructures robotic satellite refueling demonstration mission ($88 million)
- Strengthen cyber security capabilities
Small Business Administration
- $43.2 million reduction (5%)
- Maintain loan guarantees
- Reduce duplication and coordinate best practices for outreach center programs
- Maintain disaster relief lending
- Eliminate grant programs covered by the private sector ($12 million)
- Provide training and support for transitioning veterans towards business ownership
- Maintain funding for microloan financing
- Ensure SBA can advocate and assist small businesses in accessing government contracts and research opportunities
Saturday, March 11, 2017
Taxed onto Death
Taxes are an unfortunate, necessary evil in organized society with a centralized government. The reality is that laws must be made and enforced, roads built and maintained, treaties with other government negotiated, etc. There is no getting out of the fact that our government must receive money from the people in order to provide the protection and services that it does. In politics, however, there is a substantial debate over what the government (particularly on the Federal level) is responsible to provide and on the flip side how much money they need to carry out their duties. I have touched on the Federal governments responsibilities in the past and will surely discuss it many more times in the future. Today I will be focused purely on where the money comes from to pay for said services. Both the Senate (S.18) and House of Representatives (H.R.25) have bills pending to demolish the IRS and our entire tax system as we know it and put in it's place a national sales tax. This is such a bad idea that it borders on ridiculousness but I plan to unpack this plan in all seriousness to show just how ridiculous it is.
I will be the first to tell you that our current tax system is deeply flawed. It is overly complicated with abundant loop holes. Its convoluted nature makes it nearly impossible for the common man to navigate the best results without help while the rich and savvy exploit the system to avoid paying their fair share. Even when they do pay their fair share those of low income, without government support, are left with no way to save and get ahead. To illustrate this point I will use three different examples: a low income family of four, a middle class couple, and a single person with a high income. I will be relying on the 2015 Consumer Expenditure Survey for much of my data but will be rounding and in some cases adjusting my numbers to the particular cases at hand. Since wages, rents, food costs, etc. vary so dramatically across the nation I have tried to use fairly conservative numbers in the different categories.
Case 1)
A family of four (a couple with 2 children) lives off of a gross income of $30,000 a year. Because they are below the poverty line they pay nothing in taxes. They pay $1,000/month ($12,000 annually) on rent because their family size requires a certain minimum amount of living space. They pay annual utilities of about $3,000 (10% of gross income). They budge $500 a month for food and incidentals ($6,000 annually). They allow no more than $100 per person per year for new clothes and shoes which makes a total of $400 (this number is not only conservative, it is next to impossible to maintain but I'm going to roll with it). They have a single, older car that is paid for but between gas, insurance, and oil changes they spend about $3,000 a year on transportation (this does not include any car repairs that may be needed). Finally the family is fortunate enough to have modest health insurance. They avoid going to the doctor or getting medication unless absolutely necessary but still spend about $3,500 per year in health care costs between insurance premiums, co-pays, and medications. After all of these expenses the family is left with $2,100 for the year. This is their entire budget for any emergencies (medical, car breakdown, appliance replacement, etc.), care of pets, recreation, any overages on their already tight budget, plus any necessary child care over the course of the year. In a perfect world each member of the family could be allocated just over $40 per month for recreation and the family could just break even for the year. There is no room for saving money for a rainy day or for their children's education.
Case 2)
A middle class couple lives off of a gross income of $50,000 a year paying 25% of their income in taxes or about $12,500 annually. They also pay $1,000/month ($12,000 annually) on rent/mortgage but because they require less space they can afford a smaller place in a nicer neighborhood. Like the poorer family they pay 10% of their income on utilities or $5,000 annually. They have the same $500 per month ($6,000 annually) food budget but with only two mouths to feed they can make this budget stretch a lot farther on a wider variety of healthier foods as well as some luxury food items. They also have more money for clothing and can afford a nicer wardrobe at $200 per person annually or $400 total. They have a modest car payment in addition to gas, insurance, and oil changes and pay about $6,000 annually on transportation. Finally, they pay a bit more for a better insurance plan and are comfortable going to the doctor regularly for check ups. They spend about $4,500 annually on healthcare. This leaves $3,600 annually for emergencies, pet care, and recreation. That calculates out to $150 per person per month. This leaves enough money to put a small amount away in savings and still be able to go out and enjoy themselves on occasion. They are better able to take care of their physical and mental health and are less likely to get sick. Also, because they have better insurance coverage they are less likely to be financially devastated in the event of a major illness.
Case 3)
A single individual with a gross income of $100,000 a year pays 30% of their income in taxes or about $30,000 annually. They have a nice home for which they pay $2,000 a month ($24,000 annually). Like the other cases they pay about 10% in utilities or $10,000. They eat well paying an average of $750 a month ($9,000 annually) on food and incidentals. While the poorest family spends $100 per person in a year the wealthy individual spends $100 a month ($1,200 annually) on clothes for themselves. They also drive a fancy car and spend about $15,000 a year on transportation. For health care they have the best coverage available and can afford regular visits for massage and chiropractic at $6,000 a year. Even after all of this luxury the individual still has $4,800 left over at the end of the year for investment, savings, and entertainment.
I've summed up these three circumstances with the graph below:
I will be the first to tell you that our current tax system is deeply flawed. It is overly complicated with abundant loop holes. Its convoluted nature makes it nearly impossible for the common man to navigate the best results without help while the rich and savvy exploit the system to avoid paying their fair share. Even when they do pay their fair share those of low income, without government support, are left with no way to save and get ahead. To illustrate this point I will use three different examples: a low income family of four, a middle class couple, and a single person with a high income. I will be relying on the 2015 Consumer Expenditure Survey for much of my data but will be rounding and in some cases adjusting my numbers to the particular cases at hand. Since wages, rents, food costs, etc. vary so dramatically across the nation I have tried to use fairly conservative numbers in the different categories.
Case 1)
A family of four (a couple with 2 children) lives off of a gross income of $30,000 a year. Because they are below the poverty line they pay nothing in taxes. They pay $1,000/month ($12,000 annually) on rent because their family size requires a certain minimum amount of living space. They pay annual utilities of about $3,000 (10% of gross income). They budge $500 a month for food and incidentals ($6,000 annually). They allow no more than $100 per person per year for new clothes and shoes which makes a total of $400 (this number is not only conservative, it is next to impossible to maintain but I'm going to roll with it). They have a single, older car that is paid for but between gas, insurance, and oil changes they spend about $3,000 a year on transportation (this does not include any car repairs that may be needed). Finally the family is fortunate enough to have modest health insurance. They avoid going to the doctor or getting medication unless absolutely necessary but still spend about $3,500 per year in health care costs between insurance premiums, co-pays, and medications. After all of these expenses the family is left with $2,100 for the year. This is their entire budget for any emergencies (medical, car breakdown, appliance replacement, etc.), care of pets, recreation, any overages on their already tight budget, plus any necessary child care over the course of the year. In a perfect world each member of the family could be allocated just over $40 per month for recreation and the family could just break even for the year. There is no room for saving money for a rainy day or for their children's education.
Case 2)
A middle class couple lives off of a gross income of $50,000 a year paying 25% of their income in taxes or about $12,500 annually. They also pay $1,000/month ($12,000 annually) on rent/mortgage but because they require less space they can afford a smaller place in a nicer neighborhood. Like the poorer family they pay 10% of their income on utilities or $5,000 annually. They have the same $500 per month ($6,000 annually) food budget but with only two mouths to feed they can make this budget stretch a lot farther on a wider variety of healthier foods as well as some luxury food items. They also have more money for clothing and can afford a nicer wardrobe at $200 per person annually or $400 total. They have a modest car payment in addition to gas, insurance, and oil changes and pay about $6,000 annually on transportation. Finally, they pay a bit more for a better insurance plan and are comfortable going to the doctor regularly for check ups. They spend about $4,500 annually on healthcare. This leaves $3,600 annually for emergencies, pet care, and recreation. That calculates out to $150 per person per month. This leaves enough money to put a small amount away in savings and still be able to go out and enjoy themselves on occasion. They are better able to take care of their physical and mental health and are less likely to get sick. Also, because they have better insurance coverage they are less likely to be financially devastated in the event of a major illness.
Case 3)
A single individual with a gross income of $100,000 a year pays 30% of their income in taxes or about $30,000 annually. They have a nice home for which they pay $2,000 a month ($24,000 annually). Like the other cases they pay about 10% in utilities or $10,000. They eat well paying an average of $750 a month ($9,000 annually) on food and incidentals. While the poorest family spends $100 per person in a year the wealthy individual spends $100 a month ($1,200 annually) on clothes for themselves. They also drive a fancy car and spend about $15,000 a year on transportation. For health care they have the best coverage available and can afford regular visits for massage and chiropractic at $6,000 a year. Even after all of this luxury the individual still has $4,800 left over at the end of the year for investment, savings, and entertainment.
I've summed up these three circumstances with the graph below:
| Family size | 4 | 2 | 1 |
| Yearly gross income | 30,000 | 50,000 | 100,000 |
| Taxes paid | 0 | 12,500 | 30,000 |
| Annual rent/mortgage | 12,000 | 12,000 | 24,000 |
| Annual utilities | 3,000 | 5,000 | 10,000 |
| Annual food/incidentals | 6,000 | 6,000 | 9,000 |
| Annual clothing expenses | 400 | 400 | 1,200 |
| Annual transportation | 3,000 | 6,000 | 15,000 |
| Annual medical expenses | 3,500 | 4,500 | 6,000 |
| Remainder | 2,100 | 3,600 | 4,800 |
With all of this data it is no wonder that the rich get richer while the poor are unable to get maintain their current circumstances. When one major illness or an unexpected car repair can devastate your entire financial circumstances you live in constant stress which can negatively impact your long term health and wellness both mentally and physically. It is no wonder that low income families rely on public assistance just to make ends meet.
This clearly shows how our economic system, including taxes, favors the wealthy and it only gets worse when you look at incomes that range to $1 million and more. A poor family that pays no taxes takes home $30,000 annually. A single person who makes $100,000 takes home 70% or $70,000. Since our tax brackets cap out at $39.6% for incomes greater than $500,000 a person who grosses $1 million will have a take home of about $600,000.
Now that I have covered our current tax circumstances let's take a look at the congressional proposal. House Bill 25 and Senate Bill 18 both call for a flat 23% sales tax across the board. There does not seem to be any exceptions for necessary items such as food or health care costs but there is a "Family Consumption Allowance" which consists of a monthly rebate to low income families to offset tax collection. Let's see how this works by the numbers using my previous 3 cases.
Case 1)
A family of four (a couple with 2 children) lives off of a gross income of $30,000 a year. They pay $1,000/month ($12,000 annually) on rent. They pay annual utilities of about $3,000 (10% of gross income). They budge $500 a month for food and incidentals ($6,000 annually). They allow no more than $100 per person per year for new clothes and shoes which makes a total of $400. They spend about $3,000 a year on transportation (this does not include car repairs). They spend about $3,500 per year in health care costs. This means the family's total annual spending is $27,900. At a rate of 23% they would be charged an additional $6,400 for taxes. Which means their actual yearly spending would be $34,300 or more than their yearly income leaving them in perpetual debt. If the family is able to navigate the application process and are approved for the "Family Consumption Allowance" then they would, theoretically, be back to net 0 on taxes with their $2,100 reminder, but this money now has less buying power as they would still be required to pay taxes on any purchases they make with said money.
Case 2)
A middle class couple lives off of a gross income of $50,000 a year. They also pay $1,000/month ($12,000 annually) on rent/mortgage. They pay 10% of their income on utilities or $5,000 annually. They have the same $500 per month ($6,000 annually) food budget. They have a clothing budget of $200 per person annually or $400 total. They pay about $6,000 annually on transportation. Finally, they spend about $4,500 annually on healthcare. Their annual outflow would be $33,900 on which they would pay 23% in taxes or $7,800. They do not qualify for the rebate and so this leaves $8,300 annually for emergencies, pet care, and recreation. This is substantially more than the current system but the loss of buying power will reduce the amount of actual benefit the couple receives from this money.
Case 3)
A single individual with a gross income of $100,000. They pay $2,000 a month ($24,000 annually) on their home. Like the other cases they pay about 10% in utilities or $10,000. They pay an average of $750 a month ($9,000 annually) on food and incidentals. The wealthy individual spends $100 a month ($1,200 annually) on clothes for themselves. They also spend about $15,000 a year on transportation. For health care they pay about $6,000 a year. Their annual outflow is $65,200 and at 23% tax they would pay approximately $15,000, or half of their previous tax contribution. This means that they are now left with a surplus of $19,800, almost four times their previous surplus. Like the other cases they suffer a loss of buying power but this is insignificant in the face of their monetary gains.
To look at the situation as pure numbers we see the following:
A family of four (a couple with 2 children) lives off of a gross income of $30,000 a year. They pay $1,000/month ($12,000 annually) on rent. They pay annual utilities of about $3,000 (10% of gross income). They budge $500 a month for food and incidentals ($6,000 annually). They allow no more than $100 per person per year for new clothes and shoes which makes a total of $400. They spend about $3,000 a year on transportation (this does not include car repairs). They spend about $3,500 per year in health care costs. This means the family's total annual spending is $27,900. At a rate of 23% they would be charged an additional $6,400 for taxes. Which means their actual yearly spending would be $34,300 or more than their yearly income leaving them in perpetual debt. If the family is able to navigate the application process and are approved for the "Family Consumption Allowance" then they would, theoretically, be back to net 0 on taxes with their $2,100 reminder, but this money now has less buying power as they would still be required to pay taxes on any purchases they make with said money.
Case 2)
A middle class couple lives off of a gross income of $50,000 a year. They also pay $1,000/month ($12,000 annually) on rent/mortgage. They pay 10% of their income on utilities or $5,000 annually. They have the same $500 per month ($6,000 annually) food budget. They have a clothing budget of $200 per person annually or $400 total. They pay about $6,000 annually on transportation. Finally, they spend about $4,500 annually on healthcare. Their annual outflow would be $33,900 on which they would pay 23% in taxes or $7,800. They do not qualify for the rebate and so this leaves $8,300 annually for emergencies, pet care, and recreation. This is substantially more than the current system but the loss of buying power will reduce the amount of actual benefit the couple receives from this money.
Case 3)
A single individual with a gross income of $100,000. They pay $2,000 a month ($24,000 annually) on their home. Like the other cases they pay about 10% in utilities or $10,000. They pay an average of $750 a month ($9,000 annually) on food and incidentals. The wealthy individual spends $100 a month ($1,200 annually) on clothes for themselves. They also spend about $15,000 a year on transportation. For health care they pay about $6,000 a year. Their annual outflow is $65,200 and at 23% tax they would pay approximately $15,000, or half of their previous tax contribution. This means that they are now left with a surplus of $19,800, almost four times their previous surplus. Like the other cases they suffer a loss of buying power but this is insignificant in the face of their monetary gains.
To look at the situation as pure numbers we see the following:
| Family size | 4 | 2 | 1 |
| Yearly gross income | 30,000 | 50,000 | 100,000 |
| Annual rent/mortgage | 12,000 | 12,000 | 24,000 |
| Annual utilities | 3,000 | 5,000 | 10,000 |
| Annual food/incidentals | 6,000 | 6,000 | 9,000 |
| Annual clothing expenses | 400 | 400 | 1,200 |
| Annual transportation | 3,000 | 6,000 | 15,000 |
| Annual medical expenses | 3,500 | 4,500 | 6,000 |
| Total expenses | 27,900 | 33,900 | 65,200 |
| Taxes paid | 6,400 | 7,800 | 15,000 |
| Rebate | 6,400 | 0 | 0 |
| Remainder | 2,100 | 8,300 | 19,800 |
To get a real comparison let's look at what remains to each group under the current system vs. the proposed sales tax:
| Family size | 4 | 2 | 1 |
| Yearly gross income | 30,000 | 50,000 | 100,000 |
| Remainder current | 2,100 | 3,600 | 4,800 |
| Remainder proposed | 2,100 | 8,300 | 19,800 |
| Difference | 0 | 4,700 | 15,000 |
It is clear that this system does nothing to aid low income families, makes marginal gains for the middle class, and substantially benefits the wealthy. Given that the necessities of life require spending 93% of a low income family's wages, 67.8% for the middle class, but only 65.2% for the wealthy individual it is clear that this system can do nothing to help low income individuals. Furthermore, a wealthy individual can choose to spend less and save their money, further reducing their input into the tax system. Low income families, who are barely getting by, have no such luxury.
If the spending percentage holds steady for wealthy individuals (and it is more likely to go down considering the trend) then a person who earns $1 million in a year would spend about $652,000 (65.2%) and pay taxes of approximately $150,000 (23% of money spent). Under our current system, if they don't find a way to get out of it, a millionaire would contribute almost $300,000 in taxes annually. From this single individual it would be a loss of $150,000 annually in tax revenue. The loss of tax revenue would be substantial across the population necessitating steep cuts to Federal programs. Since there seems to be no move to reduce military spending, which accounts for the greatest portion of government funding, these cuts would almost certainly come at the expense of social programs, many of which are geared at assisting the poor and elderly. This would, of course, make it more difficult for low income families to make ends meet, let alone get ahead in life.
A solution to our tax problems needs to be found, but a national sales tax is not the answer. Closing loop holes, simplifying tax code, and ensuring the wealthy pay their fair share is the only way we can protect the poor and insure adequate government funding.
Thursday, February 16, 2017
Top 10 Hit List
Now that I've finally caught up on bills that have been submitted to the House of Representatives I've decided to create a top 10 list of bills to watch. None of these bills are subtle in their intent and many, I'm sure, will fail spectacularly. Nevertheless, knowledge is power and these are real bills that have been submitted by our elected officials. I will also be including here a list of those congressmen who submitted and co-sponsored these terrible acts of legislation so we can see just which Representatives are fighting against our nation's best interests.
H.R.25 - FairTax Act of 2017
This bill calls for a Federal sales tax (starting at 23%) be implemented to replace the current tax system. It also calls to defund the IRS by 2021. The summary for this bill also states that "family members who are lawful U.S. residents receive a monthly sales tax rebate (Family Consumption Allowance) based upon criteria related to family size and poverty guidelines" however this will do little to relieve the burden such a sales tax will put on low income families. This bill is very extensive so I will just touch on a few of the scarier points. For example, it calls for an "annual registration" of your family each year including proof of citizenship and residence in order to receive the monthly rebate. Next, said sales tax will be in addition to any import duties. It claims that this will be mostly implemented by the States however it will still require a sizable amount of Federal oversight for collection and disbursement to Federal programs. Furthermore, instead of a yearly reckoning of taxes as we have now the government will have to issue checks monthly to a substantial portion of the population. There is also no guarantee that assistance will be provided to help families navigate the rebate program and insure they are getting their proper benefits. Overall this bill clear disadvantages the poor while substantially benefiting the wealthy and putting a burden on economic freedom.
Those Responsible:
Rep. Woodall, Rob [R-GA]- Sponsor
Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Bridenstine, Jim [R-OK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Brooks, Mo [R-AL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Carter, John R. [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Collins, Doug [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Conaway, K. Michael [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Culberson, John Abney [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. DesJarlais, Scott [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Foxx, Virginia [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Graves, Sam [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Graves, Tom [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Issa, Darrell E. [R-CA]- Cosponsor
Rep. King, Steve [R-IA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Lucas, Frank D. [R-OK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY]- Cosponsor
Rep. Mullin, Markwayne [R-OK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Olson, Pete [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Pearce, Stevan [R-NM]- Cosponsor
Rep. Poe, Ted [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Roe, David P. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Sanford, Mark [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Walberg, Tim [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Yoho, Ted S. [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Young, Don [R-AK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Emmer, Tom [R-MN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Ratcliffe, John [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hice, Jody B. [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Chabot, Steve [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Bishop, Rob [R-UT]- Cosponsor
Rep. Posey, Bill [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hensarling, Jeb [R-TX]- Cosponsor
H.R.140 - Birthright Citizenship Act of 2017
At the founding of our nation it was established that, quite simply, being born on US soil qualified you to be a US citizen. This act "clarifies" that statement by putting limits upon said citizenship. The intent of this bill seems to be to get rid of the so called "anchor babies" i.e. children born on US soil to parents who are not legal residents. This bill absolutely fulfills that intent (and then some) but what it also does is fundamentally shift a value that has been held by Americans since our nation's founding that anyone can come here, work hard, and build a good life for themselves and their posterity. Being an American should not be determined by where our parents came from but rather the values we hold in our heart.
Those Responsible:
Rep. King, Steve [R-IA]- Sponsor
Rep. Duncan, Jeff [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Smith, Lamar [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Brooks, Mo [R-AL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Babin, Brian [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Farenthold, Blake [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Barletta, Lou [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Rohrabacher, Dana [R-CA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Woodall, Rob [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palazzo, Steven M. [R-MS]- Cosponsor
Rep. Roe, David P. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Goodlatte, Bob [R-VA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Fortenberry, Jeff [R-NE]- Cosponsor
Rep. Womack, Steve [R-AR]- Cosponsor
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
H.R.193 - American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017
This calls for the US to exit the United Nations. I've already had my say on why this is a bad idea in a more extensive previous post and will not go into my reasoning again here.
Those Responsible:
Rep. Rogers, Mike D. [R-AL]- Sponsor
Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Smith, Jason [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Labrador, Raul R. [R-ID]- Cosponsor
Rep. Mooney, Alexander X. [R-WV]- Cosponsor
H.R.352 - State Health Flexibility Act of 2017
This bill repeals not only the Affordable Care Act but also the Health Care and Educational Reconciliation Act of 2010, Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. In the place of, essentially, our entire Federal health care system, it calls for block grants to the states to provide health care to their residents. The only provisions provided to direct the states as far as what to cover is that the funds may not be used for illegal aliens or abortions except in certain emergency circumstances. In certain states where programs already exist to protect the poor this implementation will probably improve services. However, in states that already take little effort to care for the poor this will be disastrous.
Those Responsible:
Rep. Rokita, Todd [R-IN]- Sponsor
Rep. Messer, Luke [R-IN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Farenthold, Blake [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Westerman, Bruce [R-AR]- Cosponsor
Rep. DesJarlais, Scott [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Moolenaar, John R. [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palazzo, Steven M. [R-MS]- Cosponsor
Rep. Black, Diane [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Schweikert, David [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hice, Jody B. [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Pittenger, Robert [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Bishop, Rob [R-UT]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, Jeff [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Olson, Pete [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Rohrabacher, Dana [R-CA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND]- Cosponsor
Rep. Meadows, Mark [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Brat, Dave [R-VA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Stewart, Chris [R-UT]- Cosponsor
Rep. Pearce, Stevan [R-NM]- Cosponsor
Rep. Trott, David A. [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Banks, Jim [R-IN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Barr, Andy [R-KY]- Cosponsor
Rep. Allen, Rick W. [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Huizenga, Bill [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Buck, Ken [R-CO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL]- Cosponsor
H.R.586 - Sanctity of Human Life Act & H.R.681 - Life at Conception Act
Since these bills cover essentially the same material I will be lumping them together for my synopsis. Both bills take the stance that life begins at fertilization/conception, a statement that has no scientific evidence to back it up. Both are clearly anti-abortion bills though neither bill has the word abortion anywhere in the text. What both of these bills do say is that from fertilization an embryo is given full status as a human being with rights and protections under the law as such. No qualifiers are made for the safety of the life of the mother or cases of rape and incest which are common mitigating factors even by anti-abortion lobbyists. H.R. 681 is only marginally better by adding the line: "nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child" which does nothing to say that the priority will be given to the life of the mother in the case of medical emergency.
Those Responsible:
H.R. 586:
Rep. Hice, Jody B. [R-GA]- Sponsor
Rep. Allen, Rick W. [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Collins, Doug [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Crawford, Eric A. "Rick" [R-AR]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, Jeff [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Farenthold, Blake [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Ferguson, A. Drew, IV [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Graves, Tom [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Grothman, Glenn [R-WI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Johnson, Bill [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Latta, Robert E. [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Long, Billy [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Olson, Pete [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Roe, David P. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Russell, Steve [R-OK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Scott, Austin [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Wilson, Joe [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Woodall, Rob [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Brat, Dave [R-VA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Pittenger, Robert [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Rokita, Todd [R-IN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Labrador, Raul R. [R-ID]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. DesJarlais, Scott [R-TN]- Cosponsor
H.R. 681:
Rep. Mooney, Alexander X. [R-WV]- Sponsor
Rep. Jordan, Jim [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Olson, Pete [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Sessions, Pete [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Harper, Gregg [R-MS]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, Jeff [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Farenthold, Blake [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Chabot, Steve [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Noem, Kristi L. [R-SD]- Cosponsor
Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Abraham, Ralph Lee [R-LA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palmer, Gary J. [R-AL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Young, Don [R-AK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Grothman, Glenn [R-WI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Carter, John R. [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Schweikert, David [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Wagner, Ann [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY]- Cosponsor
Rep. Meadows, Mark [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Johnson, Bill [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Weber, Randy K., Sr. [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Pittenger, Robert [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Black, Diane [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Long, Billy [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Murphy, Tim [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Mullin, Markwayne [R-OK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Yoho, Ted S. [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Jenkins, Evan H. [R-WV]- Cosponsor
Rep. Rooney, Thomas J. [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Marino, Tom [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Johnson, Sam [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Aderholt, Robert B. [R-AL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Bucshon, Larry [R-IN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Poe, Ted [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. LaHood, Darin [R-IL]- Cosponsor
Rep. King, Steve [R-IA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Mitchell, Paul [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Fortenberry, Jeff [R-NE]- Cosponsor
Rep. Luetkemeyer, Blaine [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Latta, Robert E. [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Lamborn, Doug [R-CO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Barletta, Lou [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palazzo, Steven M. [R-MS]- Cosponsor
Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Allen, Rick W. [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Labrador, Raul R. [R-ID]- Cosponsor
Rep. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND]- Cosponsor
Rep. Rothfus, Keith J. [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Fleischmann, Charles J. "Chuck" [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hultgren, Randy [R-IL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Brady, Kevin [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Roe, David P. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Barton, Joe [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Peterson, Collin C. [D-MN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Smith, Jason [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Banks, Jim [R-IN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Herrera Beutler, Jaime [R-WA]- Cosponsor
H.R.861 - To terminate the Environmental Protection Agency
The text on this bill is almost comically short. As the title says it calls for the termination of the EPA. It gives a termination date of 12/31/18. That is it. Say goodbye to air quality, clean water, and protections from harmful substances if this passes. And that is without giving any concern for global climate change.
Those Responsible:
Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL]- Sponsor
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palazzo, Steven M. [R-MS]- Cosponsor
Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA]- Cosponsor
H.R.899 - To terminate the Department of Education
Another comically short bill. This one calls for the termination of the Department of Education by 12/31/18 with no provisions for what, if anything, will replace it. I've posted previously about the importance of the DOE so I'll just leave it at that.
Those Responsible:
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY]- Sponsor
Rep. Amash, Justin [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Chaffetz, Jason [R-UT]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hice, Jody B. [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Labrador, Raul R. [R-ID]- Cosponsor
H.R.997 - To declare English as the official language of the United States, to establish a uniform English language rule for naturalization, and to avoid misconstructions of the English language texts of the laws of the United States, pursuant to Congress' powers to provide for the general welfare of the United States and to establish a uniform rule of naturalization under article I, section 8, of the Constitution
The title on this bill is a bit of a mouthful but will probably be given a catchy name in the coming weeks. No text or summary are yet available for this bill but the title makes the intent fairly clear. While there is a common misconception that English is the official language of the US the reality is that no official language is listed in our constitution. English is the language of common use but various states encourage/support the use of other languages based on their constituency. The push to make English the official language has been around for years and has yet to pass, in fact I have little fear of it passing now, but as a nation founded by immigrants it is important to recognize our heritage which includes languages as varied as our origins.
Those Responsible:
Rep. King, Steve [R-IA]- Sponsor
Rep. Collins, Doug [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Barletta, Lou [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, Jeff [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY]- Cosponsor
Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palazzo, Steven M. [R-MS]- Cosponsor
Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Turner, Michael R. [R-OH]- Cosponsor
H.R.1021 - To amend section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to deem specified activities in support of terrorism as renunciation of United States nationality, and for other purposes
This bill does not yet have a text available for reference so I will be working off of the title. To state the obvious, terrorism is bad. However, the actions of individuals should not make them magically no longer part of the US. I would like to point out the very pointed use of the word "nationality" and not "citizenship". What exactly does "United States nationality" mean as far as the actions that can/will be taken under this bill? My fear, which will not be justified until a full text is posted, is that this bill will revoke certain rights and protections from individuals and will allow the government to take action against citizens that they would not otherwise be allowed under our Constitution.
Those Responsible:
Rep. King, Steve [R-IA]- Sponsor
Rep. Brat, Dave [R-VA]- Cosponsor
H.R.1031 - To eliminate the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection by repealing title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, commonly known as the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010
The title seems self explanatory and, once again, a text has yet to be posted with full details. Since this post has gone on long enough already I'll just say "Wall Street take over" and be done with it.
Those Responsible:
Rep. Ratcliffe, John [R-TX]- Sponsor
Rep. Walker, Mark [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Rice, Tom [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palmer, Gary J. [R-AL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Amash, Justin [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Roe, David P. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Westerman, Bruce [R-AR]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hurd, Will [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hudson, Richard [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. King, Steve [R-IA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Young, Don [R-AK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Wilson, Joe [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Buck, Ken [R-CO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Culberson, John Abney [R-TX]- Cosponsor
H.R.25 - FairTax Act of 2017
This bill calls for a Federal sales tax (starting at 23%) be implemented to replace the current tax system. It also calls to defund the IRS by 2021. The summary for this bill also states that "family members who are lawful U.S. residents receive a monthly sales tax rebate (Family Consumption Allowance) based upon criteria related to family size and poverty guidelines" however this will do little to relieve the burden such a sales tax will put on low income families. This bill is very extensive so I will just touch on a few of the scarier points. For example, it calls for an "annual registration" of your family each year including proof of citizenship and residence in order to receive the monthly rebate. Next, said sales tax will be in addition to any import duties. It claims that this will be mostly implemented by the States however it will still require a sizable amount of Federal oversight for collection and disbursement to Federal programs. Furthermore, instead of a yearly reckoning of taxes as we have now the government will have to issue checks monthly to a substantial portion of the population. There is also no guarantee that assistance will be provided to help families navigate the rebate program and insure they are getting their proper benefits. Overall this bill clear disadvantages the poor while substantially benefiting the wealthy and putting a burden on economic freedom.
Those Responsible:
Rep. Woodall, Rob [R-GA]- Sponsor
Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Bridenstine, Jim [R-OK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Brooks, Mo [R-AL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Carter, John R. [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Collins, Doug [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Conaway, K. Michael [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Culberson, John Abney [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. DesJarlais, Scott [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Foxx, Virginia [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Graves, Sam [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Graves, Tom [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Issa, Darrell E. [R-CA]- Cosponsor
Rep. King, Steve [R-IA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Lucas, Frank D. [R-OK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY]- Cosponsor
Rep. Mullin, Markwayne [R-OK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Olson, Pete [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Pearce, Stevan [R-NM]- Cosponsor
Rep. Poe, Ted [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Roe, David P. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Sanford, Mark [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Walberg, Tim [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Yoho, Ted S. [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Young, Don [R-AK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Emmer, Tom [R-MN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Ratcliffe, John [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hice, Jody B. [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Chabot, Steve [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Bishop, Rob [R-UT]- Cosponsor
Rep. Posey, Bill [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hensarling, Jeb [R-TX]- Cosponsor
H.R.140 - Birthright Citizenship Act of 2017
At the founding of our nation it was established that, quite simply, being born on US soil qualified you to be a US citizen. This act "clarifies" that statement by putting limits upon said citizenship. The intent of this bill seems to be to get rid of the so called "anchor babies" i.e. children born on US soil to parents who are not legal residents. This bill absolutely fulfills that intent (and then some) but what it also does is fundamentally shift a value that has been held by Americans since our nation's founding that anyone can come here, work hard, and build a good life for themselves and their posterity. Being an American should not be determined by where our parents came from but rather the values we hold in our heart.
Those Responsible:
Rep. King, Steve [R-IA]- Sponsor
Rep. Duncan, Jeff [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Smith, Lamar [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Brooks, Mo [R-AL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Babin, Brian [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Farenthold, Blake [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Barletta, Lou [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Rohrabacher, Dana [R-CA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Woodall, Rob [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palazzo, Steven M. [R-MS]- Cosponsor
Rep. Roe, David P. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Goodlatte, Bob [R-VA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Fortenberry, Jeff [R-NE]- Cosponsor
Rep. Womack, Steve [R-AR]- Cosponsor
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
H.R.193 - American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017
This calls for the US to exit the United Nations. I've already had my say on why this is a bad idea in a more extensive previous post and will not go into my reasoning again here.
Those Responsible:
Rep. Rogers, Mike D. [R-AL]- Sponsor
Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Smith, Jason [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Labrador, Raul R. [R-ID]- Cosponsor
Rep. Mooney, Alexander X. [R-WV]- Cosponsor
H.R.352 - State Health Flexibility Act of 2017
This bill repeals not only the Affordable Care Act but also the Health Care and Educational Reconciliation Act of 2010, Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. In the place of, essentially, our entire Federal health care system, it calls for block grants to the states to provide health care to their residents. The only provisions provided to direct the states as far as what to cover is that the funds may not be used for illegal aliens or abortions except in certain emergency circumstances. In certain states where programs already exist to protect the poor this implementation will probably improve services. However, in states that already take little effort to care for the poor this will be disastrous.
Those Responsible:
Rep. Rokita, Todd [R-IN]- Sponsor
Rep. Messer, Luke [R-IN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Farenthold, Blake [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Westerman, Bruce [R-AR]- Cosponsor
Rep. DesJarlais, Scott [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Moolenaar, John R. [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palazzo, Steven M. [R-MS]- Cosponsor
Rep. Black, Diane [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Schweikert, David [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hice, Jody B. [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Pittenger, Robert [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Bishop, Rob [R-UT]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, Jeff [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Olson, Pete [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Rohrabacher, Dana [R-CA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND]- Cosponsor
Rep. Meadows, Mark [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Brat, Dave [R-VA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Stewart, Chris [R-UT]- Cosponsor
Rep. Pearce, Stevan [R-NM]- Cosponsor
Rep. Trott, David A. [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Banks, Jim [R-IN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Barr, Andy [R-KY]- Cosponsor
Rep. Allen, Rick W. [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Huizenga, Bill [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Buck, Ken [R-CO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL]- Cosponsor
H.R.586 - Sanctity of Human Life Act & H.R.681 - Life at Conception Act
Since these bills cover essentially the same material I will be lumping them together for my synopsis. Both bills take the stance that life begins at fertilization/conception, a statement that has no scientific evidence to back it up. Both are clearly anti-abortion bills though neither bill has the word abortion anywhere in the text. What both of these bills do say is that from fertilization an embryo is given full status as a human being with rights and protections under the law as such. No qualifiers are made for the safety of the life of the mother or cases of rape and incest which are common mitigating factors even by anti-abortion lobbyists. H.R. 681 is only marginally better by adding the line: "nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child" which does nothing to say that the priority will be given to the life of the mother in the case of medical emergency.
Those Responsible:
H.R. 586:
Rep. Hice, Jody B. [R-GA]- Sponsor
Rep. Allen, Rick W. [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Collins, Doug [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Crawford, Eric A. "Rick" [R-AR]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, Jeff [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Farenthold, Blake [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Ferguson, A. Drew, IV [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Graves, Tom [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Grothman, Glenn [R-WI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Johnson, Bill [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Latta, Robert E. [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Long, Billy [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Olson, Pete [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Roe, David P. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Russell, Steve [R-OK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Scott, Austin [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Wilson, Joe [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Woodall, Rob [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Brat, Dave [R-VA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Pittenger, Robert [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Rokita, Todd [R-IN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Labrador, Raul R. [R-ID]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. DesJarlais, Scott [R-TN]- Cosponsor
H.R. 681:
Rep. Mooney, Alexander X. [R-WV]- Sponsor
Rep. Jordan, Jim [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Olson, Pete [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Sessions, Pete [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Harper, Gregg [R-MS]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, Jeff [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Farenthold, Blake [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Chabot, Steve [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Noem, Kristi L. [R-SD]- Cosponsor
Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Abraham, Ralph Lee [R-LA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palmer, Gary J. [R-AL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Young, Don [R-AK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Grothman, Glenn [R-WI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Carter, John R. [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Schweikert, David [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Wagner, Ann [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY]- Cosponsor
Rep. Meadows, Mark [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Johnson, Bill [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Weber, Randy K., Sr. [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Pittenger, Robert [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Black, Diane [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Long, Billy [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Murphy, Tim [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Mullin, Markwayne [R-OK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Yoho, Ted S. [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Jenkins, Evan H. [R-WV]- Cosponsor
Rep. Rooney, Thomas J. [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Marino, Tom [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Johnson, Sam [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Aderholt, Robert B. [R-AL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Bucshon, Larry [R-IN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Poe, Ted [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. LaHood, Darin [R-IL]- Cosponsor
Rep. King, Steve [R-IA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Mitchell, Paul [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Fortenberry, Jeff [R-NE]- Cosponsor
Rep. Luetkemeyer, Blaine [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Latta, Robert E. [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Lamborn, Doug [R-CO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Barletta, Lou [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palazzo, Steven M. [R-MS]- Cosponsor
Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Allen, Rick W. [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Labrador, Raul R. [R-ID]- Cosponsor
Rep. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND]- Cosponsor
Rep. Rothfus, Keith J. [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Fleischmann, Charles J. "Chuck" [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hultgren, Randy [R-IL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Brady, Kevin [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Roe, David P. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Barton, Joe [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Peterson, Collin C. [D-MN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Smith, Jason [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Banks, Jim [R-IN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Herrera Beutler, Jaime [R-WA]- Cosponsor
H.R.861 - To terminate the Environmental Protection Agency
The text on this bill is almost comically short. As the title says it calls for the termination of the EPA. It gives a termination date of 12/31/18. That is it. Say goodbye to air quality, clean water, and protections from harmful substances if this passes. And that is without giving any concern for global climate change.
Those Responsible:
Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL]- Sponsor
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palazzo, Steven M. [R-MS]- Cosponsor
Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA]- Cosponsor
H.R.899 - To terminate the Department of Education
Another comically short bill. This one calls for the termination of the Department of Education by 12/31/18 with no provisions for what, if anything, will replace it. I've posted previously about the importance of the DOE so I'll just leave it at that.
Those Responsible:
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY]- Sponsor
Rep. Amash, Justin [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Chaffetz, Jason [R-UT]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hice, Jody B. [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Labrador, Raul R. [R-ID]- Cosponsor
H.R.997 - To declare English as the official language of the United States, to establish a uniform English language rule for naturalization, and to avoid misconstructions of the English language texts of the laws of the United States, pursuant to Congress' powers to provide for the general welfare of the United States and to establish a uniform rule of naturalization under article I, section 8, of the Constitution
The title on this bill is a bit of a mouthful but will probably be given a catchy name in the coming weeks. No text or summary are yet available for this bill but the title makes the intent fairly clear. While there is a common misconception that English is the official language of the US the reality is that no official language is listed in our constitution. English is the language of common use but various states encourage/support the use of other languages based on their constituency. The push to make English the official language has been around for years and has yet to pass, in fact I have little fear of it passing now, but as a nation founded by immigrants it is important to recognize our heritage which includes languages as varied as our origins.
Those Responsible:
Rep. King, Steve [R-IA]- Sponsor
Rep. Collins, Doug [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Barletta, Lou [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, Jeff [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY]- Cosponsor
Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palazzo, Steven M. [R-MS]- Cosponsor
Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Turner, Michael R. [R-OH]- Cosponsor
H.R.1021 - To amend section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to deem specified activities in support of terrorism as renunciation of United States nationality, and for other purposes
This bill does not yet have a text available for reference so I will be working off of the title. To state the obvious, terrorism is bad. However, the actions of individuals should not make them magically no longer part of the US. I would like to point out the very pointed use of the word "nationality" and not "citizenship". What exactly does "United States nationality" mean as far as the actions that can/will be taken under this bill? My fear, which will not be justified until a full text is posted, is that this bill will revoke certain rights and protections from individuals and will allow the government to take action against citizens that they would not otherwise be allowed under our Constitution.
Those Responsible:
Rep. King, Steve [R-IA]- Sponsor
Rep. Brat, Dave [R-VA]- Cosponsor
H.R.1031 - To eliminate the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection by repealing title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, commonly known as the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010
The title seems self explanatory and, once again, a text has yet to be posted with full details. Since this post has gone on long enough already I'll just say "Wall Street take over" and be done with it.
Those Responsible:
Rep. Ratcliffe, John [R-TX]- Sponsor
Rep. Walker, Mark [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Rice, Tom [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palmer, Gary J. [R-AL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Amash, Justin [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Roe, David P. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Westerman, Bruce [R-AR]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hurd, Will [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hudson, Richard [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. King, Steve [R-IA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Young, Don [R-AK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Wilson, Joe [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Buck, Ken [R-CO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Culberson, John Abney [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)