Tax reform postcards from the edge

The Republican controlled United States Congress is attempting something significant that has not happened in more than three decades. Yet it is something that almost everyone in both parties believes to be grossly overdue.

Updates to the United States tax code have not been accomplished since Ronald Reagan was President.

That long ago legislation passed a voice vote in the House of Representatives in December 1985. It then took another seven months before finally passing the Senate in June 1986. President Reagan then signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 into law on October 22, 1986.

Over the ensuing decades, further changes to the tax code have been discussed and debated in both formal political circles as well as in the media and in academia. Many on both sides of the American political aisle have voiced their concern that tax reform was necessary. Agreeing to the specifics and getting such reform done has been much more elusive.

Charles Rangel is as liberal a Democrat as you are going to find. He served in Congress for nearly five decades before retiring earlier this year. Per Brainy Quotes, Rangel once stated "We all want a simpler code, but tax reform is about much more. It is about ensuring that everyone pays their fair share."

Those final words have usually become the rub. What makes up a "fair share?" Reaching any consensus is becoming nearly impossible now in an era where American politics are as partisan and polarized as any in history. 

That 1986 tax legislation was actually co-sponsored by a pair of Democrats, Congressman Dick Gephart and Senator Bill Bradley. While Republicans held a 53-47 advantage in the Senate, the final vote in support for tax reform was 97-3. 

When the 2017 House vote was taken on November 16, no Democrats voted for it. None. Their mantra, as it has always been, claimed that Republicans were cutting taxes for "the top 1%" of earners, while giving no or little actual relief to the middle class. 

The Speaker of the House, Republican Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, responded per Naomi Jagoda and Cristina Marcos for The Hill that "Passing this bill is the single biggest thing we can do to grow the economy, to restore opportunity and help these middle-income families who are struggling."

The fact is that on most issues, especially the big ones, votes in both the House and Senate now come down rigidly along party lines. Where there used to be a dozen or more "swing" votes to be had, legislators of either party who could be appealed to and lobbied for support, that is rarely the case today. 

There is always an obligatory appeal to the middle class by both parties. Each claims to want to bring relief to those middle income earners. Yet somehow, the two parties can never agree on any issue that will actually help the middle class.

Getting actual tax reform done now is going to come down to one party or the other gaining control of both the House and the Senate. Then they are also likely to need a President of their same party who is willing to sign the new tax proposal into law.

Right now, Republicans have just such control. The GOP holds a slim 52-48 edge in the U.S. Senate, and a tight 239-194 edge in the House of Representatives. And, of course, a Republican now sits in the Oval office for the first time in eight years.

E.U. 21st Century = U.S.S.R. 20th Century?

What lies behind the creation of the European Union, once believed to be simply a device to expand economic relationships and opportunities, but now quite obviously a major attack on individual nationhood? Could this same fate of sacrificing national sovereignty for some ideology occur here in the United States of America?

In 1957 six countries - West Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands - signed what became known as the 'Treaties of Rome' establishing a 'European Economic Community' which was an effort to both foster economic opportunity and to begin stepping away from the nationalism that many saw as the root cause of the two world wars that had devastated the continent during the first half of the 20th century.

In 1973 this union of nations was enlarged when Great Britain, Ireland and Denmark joined what had become known as the 'European Community' with institutions covering the economy, energy, and major industry. By the end of the 70's the first direct democratic elections to a 'European Parliament' were being held.

During the 1980's, Greece, Spain and Portugal all joined and a policy of open borders was developed that eliminated the need for passports across all of Europe. In 1986 a European flag was adopted and the 'Single European Act' was signed by member nations. This act expanded on the earlier 'Treaties of Rome' and set the goal of having a common market by the end of 1992.

On November 1st, 1993 the 'Maastricht Treaty' came into force. Signed by member nations in February of '92, the treaty formally established the EU and set into motion the creation of the 'Euro' as an official currency. Sweden, Finland and Austria joined up during the 90's, and in 2002 the euro replaced the old national currency in all of the member states.

During the last decade the membership role of nations exploded into eastern Europe to include places like Poland, Hungary, Romania and the Czech Republic, bringing to 27 the current total number of member states, though only 16 are included in what is known as the 'Eurozone' by accepting the euro as their official currency.

On December 1st, 2009 the 'Treaty of Lisbon' came into force after it was signed back in December of '07. This treaty basically centralized power and formalized the state symbols in the EU, weakening democracy by moving true power away from the voters in each nation and handing it over to the EU power structure, and moving one step closer to erasing individual nationalism.

It also established the first-ever official head of state, a long term 'President of the European Council' who is appointed to a 2 1/2 year term by the Council and who may be reappointed one time. Herman Van Rompuy of Belgium was selected as the first President, and is serving now until at least May of 2012.

It further and perhaps most frighteningly established an agency known as 'EuroPol', the European Police Force having full diplomatic immunity in enforcing criminal counts that include, as pointed out by former Soviet political prisoner Vladimir Bukovsky, nebulous charges such as 'racism' and 'xenophobia'.

As Bukovsky pointed out in a recent piece for the Cato Institute: "the authorities have already explained to us, in a very quiet manner, that those who might object to the immigration policy of the EU can be accused of racism. And those who oppose further integration of Europe can be charged with xenophobia."

The structure of the European Parliament was described as a "mad house" that makes the old Supreme Soviet of the USSR look "like a model legislature" due to it's 1,200-1,400 members who do not have a central meeting place and whose members normally only have an opportunity to speak in front of the group for meer minutes each year.

Why is it important to point out the old Soviet Union, which led the way to disillusionment, imprisonment, and death to millions of people during the 20th century? Because the EU is heading down the exact same socialist path, a path that has also reared it's ugly head in America with the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency here.

Back in the 1980's, with Gorbachev sensing power slipping from the increasingly damaged Soviet Union but still believing in the ideology of socialism, he met with the leaders of Europe's leftist parties who shared this vision and together they launched 'Common European Home', a project to organize socialism across all of Europe. They threw all of their considerable support behind the formation of the EU for this very purpose.

In today's Europe, behind the names and lines on your map and the pride of the people in the individual nations, a monster is swallowing up the old world. This behemoth is known as the European Union, a socialist body of cronyism and central government planning. Before the end of this century, if nothing major changes, it will lead to the same disaster that became of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Soviet Union, in the 20th century.

The great challenge here in the United States is the same as it was during the USSR-led rush to embrace communism and socialism in the last century. That challenge is to not be a follower and join in the rush to give up our national greatness and identity, as well as our individual freedoms. It is the challenge to instead be a leader in the fight for freedom and democracy.

The American people still have the power that the European people have slowly allowed their politicians and power brokers to negotiate away from them. We have the power to stand up and be counted, to kick the socialists and central planners out on their cans, and to hold true to the values and vision of our Constitution.

Will the United States follow the European Union, which itself is following the old Soviet Union, down the path toward socialism by beginning to form some 'North American Union' with Mexico, Canada, and other nations of the Americas, yielding our power and our pride to some nebulous central authority? Or will we stand strong for true democracy and the individual freedoms and liberties given to us as true gifts from God himself? Only the passage of 21st century time will tell.

American Health System Not the Real Sicko

In the summer of 2007, ultra-liberal propagandist Michael Moore released his documentary film titled 'Sicko', which was intended to compare the U.S. health care system to other nations and to tell HMO horror stories. Moore's basic premise was that the American system was somehow broken, and that it just could not compare with the health care received in places such as communist Cuba. What Moore and his fellow liberal idealogues would have you believe is that if only the United States would adopt a national health care system such as the one implemented in Canada, and would guarantee everyone free health care, all would be well with the world. So many more regular folks would be healthy and whole, not just the wealthy patrons of the current health care model. Of course Moore weighs down his films with so many outright lies and distortions of truth that the majority of thinking Americans have come to recognize them for the far left, neo-socialism smear pieces that they are in actuality, and have stayed away from the theatres in droves. As Cato Institute medical expert Dr. Michael D. Tanner reports in the article "The Doctor Is In" from the July 2008 issue of Townhall magazine: "Moore cites a 2000 World Health Organization study that ranks the U.S. health care system as 37th in the world." Tanner goes on to explain that the W.H.O. measured highly subjective items such as 'fairness', 'not having a sufficiently progressive tax system', 'tobacco control', 'not providing all citizens health insurance', and not enough 'social welfare' programs. Bottom line, the W.H.O. takes a political position, not a medical one, in ranking the U.S. so low, playing right into Moore's socialist visions. When the W.H.O. does finally talk of the actual medical care here in the U.S., they rank us at the top for the truly important areas of 'provider choice', 'dignity', 'autonomy', 'confidentiality', and perhaps most importantly 'timely care'. You see, American health care is actually so good that large numbers of foreigners come here every year for their treatments, drugs, and surgeries. Want a perfect example? Belinda Stronach, a member of the Canadian Parliament, developed breast cancer and, as Tanner reported: "abandoned her country's national health care system", instead seeking treatment at a California hospital. Stronach could have received her treatment right there in Canada, but would have had to go through the red tape, referals, and waiting lists that the rest of her countrymen have to endure. But she didn't have time to wait, since over 800,000 Canadians are currently on waiting lists for various procedures, suffering what their highest court calls 'chronic pain' which many will endure until they die while still waiting their place on the lists to be reached. In his film, Moore further makes a point that Cuban babies have low infant mortality rates when compared with American babies, and yet fails to point out that Cuba has one of the world's highest abortion rates, meaning that many babies with potential health problems are never brought to term in the first place. And here in the U.S. our technology is so far advanced that low birth-weight babies who are automatically dead in Cuba can be born alive here. Some will make it, some will not, and those that do not contribute mightily to our infant mortality rate. As I said, in Cuba none of these types of babies would make it home alive. Whether it be cancer, heart disease, pneumonia, or even AIDS, patients of any disease, illness, or condition have a far better chance at survival and cure when treated at American health facilities under the current U.S. health care system. As long as our system continues to be free of national restrictions and buerocratic red tape, this will continue to be the case. Do we have problems? Sure, but a deficit in the quality of care here is not one of them. We need to figure out a way to keep prescription drugs at the lowest possible prices. But the way to reach that goal is not to restrict or regulate drug companies, but instead ensure they have incentives to lower those prices and keep them affordable. How we balance the need for greater care for some of our citizens against the need to maintain the availablity of the best health care in the world is one question. How we balance the desire to see our poorest citizens receive basic health care against the need to keep the incentives high for our best medical facilities to research and develop the best treatments into the future is another question. There are many questions. But the answer is not to scrap the system that we have in favor of some 'national' or 'universal' health care system. None of us need that nightmare of long lines, long waits, long periods of pain, and shorter lives.