It is actually fairly simple. There is no clear delineation between corporate power and politics (i.e. our governance). Businesses routinely influence policy to their favor. If we can downsize government and the power government has over the citizens, then the government has less favors to give corporations.

I feel that you are living in a fantasy world where government is the super hero. It is not. There is no clean line between the wolf and the protectors of the sheep.

Government is the wolf in sheep’s clothing. Now why would you want more of it?

Let's hope you pay back your sucess with your on money, not mine... :)

EPA has not investigated a single case of harm done by fracking.
Remember, look at what is happing. Please tell me what makes one think a larger government will make the above situation any better? If I can have a smaller and cheaper government that produces the same results, isn’t that better?

“The advantages of smaller government are an illusion. Just because you can walk into the town office and talk to the town manager does not mean you have influence, can get anything done, or can compete with a major power center (corporation, government, rich folks)”

Again, you are assuming here that a larger government will be less favorable to the power centers – not necessarily. What in the world makes you think a larger government will operate any differently?
The government of today is larger than the government of the Carter administration, but can you say there is less influence today from the power centers than there was during the Carter administration? My answer would be that there is more corruption in government today then back then, but government is larger?

Deliverance perhaps - fad to dueling banjos.

I spin on the fuse blower picture above, so don’t get shorted.

All distractions from the real issues - Jobs, debt, the economy.

..

Agreed,

As a public service, one should be mandated to live by the laws they legislate.
Moreover, no more life-time retirement after 4 years of service and institute defined contribution retirement plans in lieu pensions.

Jason,

You are correct in that smaller government does not necessarily mean lest waste. However, a smaller government in terms of budget and size (number of departments and staff) is easier to manage given the same level of oversight as provided in a larger government.

Moreover, of government does go wild, then there are fewer dollars to squander.

Also, smaller government makes it easier for Joe public to monitor for an additional level of checks and balances.

There are lots of benefits to smaller government. Let's restrict government to the basics functions that cannot be provided in the private sector - defense, roads, infrastructure. Leave practically everything else to the state.

James,

Please don’t fall into the fallacy that more money given to the schools means a better education.

My wife is from South East Asia, and we travel to her native country once every two years. I’m surprise to see how her home country can educate children for far less per student. The class sizes are bigger – 40-60 students. Moreover, the students on average outperform US students.

The biggest difference that I see is in the student’s and parents attitudes about education; the children are driven and parents are engaged.

Now that is not to say the US is capable of replicating these results, but the takeaway I would give to you is to use the public system as framework for education, but you provide the additional support to make your children successful. The more you put into your children’s education, the more your children and you will get out of it. Above all, prioritize education over play.

Tony,
Why must you swing your pendulum on to far opposite end of the spectrum when someone mentions downsizing (i.e. reducing taxing and spending) government?

I read of no one proposing to eliminate government.

You are trying to establish a false dichotomy (big government or no government), which most readers are not buying.

You’re welcome to “LOL”, but your brand of government failing throughout Europe is it not?

Tony,

The alternative to austerity is continuance of debt spending. Please enlighten us on how a Nation can continue in that manner? Are you not just postponing the inevitable when a Nation’s credit dries up or a Nation continues to print money without bounds?

Since many of our day-to-day items are imports, like crude oil, what do you think will happen to the price of these items when the t dollar is devalued?
One bright spot is that we can keep an eye on Greece to see if it drops out of the EU and starts printing its own currency to keep up with an unsustainable life style. Hopefully we’ll learn from them before it is too late, and we follow that same path.

“To that end, they propose killing government except where it serves the wealthy.”

Is this just your opinion, or do you have insights into some kind of conspiracy? What is your evidence? Moreover, don’t the Democrats give special favors to their wealthy supporters? Why do you selectively fail to mention that as well?

While your cries of apocalypse may resonate with people of like mind, there is nothing of substance backing your assertions. It is time for all readers to set aside their emotions and think critically. Can this nation continue to borrow $0.40 (today’s debt rate) on the dollar without negative economic impact?

Lastly, smaller government means less political favors from both major parties. Less money in Washington means less money to grant political favors. If crooks go where the money is to be found, let’s move the money back into the pockets of the rightful owners.

Claire,

Are you opposed to all budget cuts?

Bob,

Ever consider that the company “right sized” because you became unionized labor force, and therefore, would not have “right sized” if the labor force did not unionize?

Freedom is a two-way street, freedom for labor to organize and freedom of companies to resist! Do you want to restrict freedom?

“People (read government) need to talk with one another and come up with reasonable laws, not just say the hell with it and jam laws down our throats.”

Standard response when you don’t agree with the policies. I feel the same way when new taxes are rammed down my throat.
Perhaps the solution is smaller government, like in a part time legislature . The premise is that smaller government makes fewer laws for all to hate.

Betty,

The fact that you blame only Republicans reveals your hues of jade.

Both Republicans and Democrats have negotiated free trade agreements that open foreign markets to goods, services, and LABOR as an example.

In my opinion, anyone who blames a particular political party or looks to a particular political party for salvation is blind to reality.

Bob,

You start to lose credibility when you throw out those wild claims targeted a one individual.

I challenge you to show your proof, or retract your claims!

Zack,

For better or worse, globalization, and to a larger extend automation, has created a surplus of labor. Many employers have alternatives.

You may dislike this phenomenon, but ignoring it may mean the demise of your job due to labor's demands.

Danny,

Perhaps Governor LePage punched the correct bully in the mouth!
When the so called “earned pension” are breaking the back of the taxpayer or employer, then it is time to knock it for a loop.

It is time that organized labor realize that changes in the global labor markets give privately owned business at least alternatives to high labor costs.

I’m positive you understand the concept of an average. The data shows nothing more than the Government is spending more than average over 40 decades.

The takeaway is simple – the government is spending more today...

It is a bit ironic that many who post opinions herein are more concerned about placing blame on Republicans or Democrats for current problems. Perhaps government itself is at fault here.

Take your Reagan comment for example. It is interesting trivia, but it contributes nothing to fixing the current spending problem. New flash – Reagan is not in office, Reagan has passed on.

In my opinion, the government should strive to balance the budget yearly. Deciding what percent of GDP the government should control in peace time should be a mutually exclusive discussion.

The Rich do pay more in federal taxes than the poor “on average” measured in both percentage of income and in absolute dollars. Yes, you can point to some exceptions, but averages paint the broader picture. Moreover, the rich have more disposable income. For you that is a problem, not so much for me.

If you really want farness, all income earners should pay taxes - all. A flat rate, not deduction tax policy is easy to implement and measure. Oh, yes, if you make less, you have less disposable income; that is life.

Lastly, I simply don’t understand the envy that drives distain for the wealthy. Perhaps I’m too busy trying to rise the economic latter myself. Perhaps people should be more than mere consumers of goods and services (a.ka. sheepeople) and learn now to make money work for them along the way.

Ronald,
There are no stupid questions, perhaps only stupid answers.

Perhaps Dan was banned from the site, which is noticeable to anyone reading the same thread and the time.

Dan could have announced his departure, and you noticed.

I clearly over estimated your powers of observation.

All that said, a simple “I don’t know” or “no clue” response would be sufficient, or even an implicit response through silence would do.

Enjoy the day - if you can.

Well, it allows one to see what talking to a liberal point of view is all about.

Jason,
Ah, a Patriot to whom? Were the original 13 colonies Patriots to King George and his oppressive government? Did not we fight a revolution in part to taxation without representation?

Rebellion takes many forms. If our government is spending us into serfdom, should we not rebel?

In 1930’s Nazi Germany, the people were Patriots to the government, was that a good thing?

Patriotism for patriotism’s sake is not always warranted.

Ask yourself where your threshold is. How many pennies on the dollar would the government have to take from you before you rebel? How many? Oh and please spare the words, I’m looking for a simple numeric answer (i.e. $0.50).

Heidi,

“Wouldn’t it be better to keep as many people as possible in the health care system; practice preventive medicine with mammograms, pap smears and colonoscopies, and provide medication and treatment early for diseases discovered?”

Ostensibly yes, but who will pay for all these services, especially when our Federal Government borrows near $0.40 on every dollar it spends?

Take unfunded Medicare liabilities for example; there is simply not enough revenue to sustain these programs.

What then? How far will that healthcare right take you when the country is bankrupt?

I’ll take your answer as a simple no.

Ronald,
I did not say that I condoned this behavior. I just simply stated people are free to protest with their feet. A basic statement of what is!

I don’t like the wealth exodus from this country any more than you, but you cannot or should not ignore that as free people we have the choice to walk.

So what are we going to do?

There are two basic approaches:
1. Takeaway people’s freedom - do we really want to go here?
2. Stop behaving in a manner such that it drives people out. That is stop attacking the rich for simply being rich.

While the war against the rich may make you feel good with minor victories enforced through the tax code, many of the real wealthy do have the freedom of mobility.

Now you can say good, let them all go, but you must consider there are unintended consequences. In this case, the wealth is removed from this country.

Lastly and on a somewhat different topic, we are all complicit in the wealth exodus when we buy cheap foreign imports. Personally, I do without where I can instead of buying imported crap from Wal*mart.

Being a Patriot (i.e. red, white, and blue) does not mean you fork over any amount of money the Government desires.

In fact, a real Patriot will fight the government’s tendency to target a certain class of people disproportionally. A real Patriot will fight the government’s demonstrated tendency to over spend.

What will the tax and spenders do when all the wealth is driven from this country? We are free men and women. We are not contractually obligated to our State, nor are we contractually obligated to our Country.

That is reality, do you want to test its limits?

It all comes down to personal responsibility, something we cannot legislate.

“So the solution is to address the recession.”

Here you are assuming that pre-recession growth rate and GPD are the norm. Perhaps the economy has contracted to its normal equilibrium. The US has participated in deficit spending for over 3 decades. This artificially inflates the economy above its normal equilibrium that would exist without that spending.

Dumping more stimulus spending into the current economy is just perpetuating the distortion of the sustainable equilibrium, especially after 4 years since the onset of the recession. Moreover, we are no longer in a recession by definition, so again, more stimulus will artificially distort the natural equilibrium.

The solution is to grow GDP at a sustainable level without artificial stimulus.

“The top 1% pay 1/4 of the tax rate today that they paid 60
years ago.”

This is only half the picture since you are not factoring in deductions. You really need to look at tax liability as a percentage of adjusted gross income. Plus tax rates during WWII were abnormally high, so one should view that as an anomaly in the overall data instead of pointing to it as a norm.

Your tax liability is the absolute number of dollars paid to the government which is comprised of (INCOME-DEDUCTIONS)*MARGINAL TAX RATE. You must consider both variables, deductions and marginal tax rate in you argument if you want to paint the full picture.

You can find this information from the tax foundation as see that the straight line approximation is up and to the right. Time permitting later, I’ll find the data for you to review.

Lastly, current tax revenue as a percent of GDP is as almost as high as it was during WWII.

Jason,

It all problems come back to basics. Perhaps government likes to preset problems as complex, but all complex problems can be decomposed into basic concepts. My training as an Engineering enables me to take complex problems and decompose them into basic engineering concepts.

Let’s take the budget deficit for example. I read many opinions herein about complex economic theory, it is the Democrat’s fault, it is the Republican’s fault, …, etc.

It all comes down to basics, spending exceeds revenue no matter how you slice it. People add complexity for many reason, perhaps one being to divide people to hide one or more parity’s agenda or to avoid addressing the problem. The solution to a budget deficit is to match revenue and spending – simple.

If one cannot decompose a problem into basic concepts, one will never be an effective problem solver.

Jonathan,

Step back and consider what Pirate is trying to say. The takeaway is that you cannot always expect the government to protect you. The government, or individuals in the government, who are vulnerable to human emotion – greed for one, may not have your best interest in mind similar to a hungry lion.

Jason,

I couldn’t disagree with you more. Humans are emotional creatures. The concept of love is emotional. Greed, jealousy, and envy are part of that emotion. There is no culture that exist that greed, jealousy, and envy are not present.

You’re quite the idealistic dreamer - just observe humanity.

Christine,
Perhaps you forgot that the Governor does represent and speak for the people of Maine by the fact he was elected Governor.

It is a bit ironic that those who don’t share the Governors vision squawk about needing to “working together.”

If enough people have the same opinion as you, then vote the Governor out of office next election. Until then, he represents the people.

Al,

The downside is that the money funding the war is borrowed or printed. Spending money we don’t have on guns or butter amounts to the same thing – sending money we don’t have.

...the government go underground.

The 2nd amendment of the U.S. constitution.

Marilyn,
As a taxpayer and a private sector employee, I can tell you that I feel beaten down at times and tired of the relentless push for more taxes.

That said, I do find comfort in knowing this behavior will come to an end, either when the taxpayers revolt or when there are not enough taxpayers to foot the bill. Either way, it will end.

If his actions result in smaller Government – I’m okay with that.

Frank,
I would think once you settled charges with the Hospital for all services render at their facility, then that is that, the contract is compete.

I had a similar experience. I needed to see a doctor, but had no insurance at the time. I made an appointment, and paid $70.00 for the visit. The office later billed me for an additional $50.00.

In fact, the Doctor’s office insisted I pay in full prior to being seen by the Doctor; I complied.
In closing, I told them to go pound sand for the additional $50.00 since our contract was for $70.00, especially when the office wanted cash before the Doctor would even see me.

You did the right thing by standing up to them. Where else do you go buy a good or service, pay the bill, then get additional charges, certainly not at wal*mart.

All charges should be present at the point of service – period.

Ronald,

I’m still intrigued with your belief that government is the solution, especially when we repeatedly see political favors come out of Washington form both major parties at the taxpayers’ expense.

Corporations are not greed, government is not greedy, but humans are greedy. How can we expect different behavior from humans depending on their affiliation with corporations or government?

I would assert that the size of government does matter since like moths are attracted to flame; greedy people are attached to where the money is distributed
.
How do you come to your conclusion?

Is it not the government, the same institution you look to for salvation, that enables outsourcing?

Again, this is another example where government is part of the problem. I still wonder why you continue look at government with faithful eyes.

“Robbing you idiots is like shooting fish in a barrel?”

Would not be true if we had no idiots? How many idiots wastes dollars on iPhones , iPads, snowmobiles, RVs, ...., rather than save and invest. Why should I be responsible for these idiots? We cannot have one without the other.

“Thanks for bailing us out you peasants.” - That was our trustful government that you put so much faith in to provide single payer healthcare. Perhaps you know why I’m so skeptical about governments’ ability to execute. My government does not have my best intrest in mind. Thinking so, makes me an idiot ripe for the picking.

I’ll reserve my comment about the guy in the back row who resembles a younger Ronald proclaiming he is not wearing any pants.

I think where you and I differ in opinion the most is that you look to government for a solution, while I think government is part of the problem. If it were not for the government, we would not have corporate bailouts and many corpoarate subsidies. If business cannot stand on its own two feet, then it should close its doors; this also applies to auto manufactures as well.

Claire,
Having a private insurance policy, it is my responsibility to review all expenses billed to my insurance company and notify them of fraudulent a actively.

Like Medicare, private insurers know what procedures cost, so one of the only door’s to fraud is billing for procedure’s that are not provided.

For some reason, that concept alludes Medicare. If it did not, then we would not have as much fraud.

Claire,
Freedom does not mean you can injure others. In a similar context, freedom does mean you are free to injure yourself, and doing so does not mean others have to pay for your mistakes.
“The alternative
is to live alone in an ice cave in Antartica. You could have all the freedom
in the world there.”

Again you are presenting a false dichotomy. The decision for what is best for a community is best determined by the community in which you reside (i.e. state or local government) rather than a centralized government. Citizens can then be free to pursue those communities that best represent their values, which is a far cry then living in an ice cave.

The best ideas will win public acceptance, and transparency will allow these best ides to propagate from community to community (i.e. state-to-sate). This is in contrast to a centralized government saying what is best for everyone. If not given the freedom to explore, experiment, and measure results from ideas, how do we know what the centralized government prescribes is best?

That is not to say there is not a role for centralized government, but it should not be the dominate decision maker.

For example, the majority in Maine wish to pursue a progressive social agenda that I don’t agree with, I can pick up my belongings and move to a state that is more in line with my values.

Doesn’t that better model the constitution (i.e. pursue of happiness) than forcing the minority to live under tyranny of the majority? This applies to a plurality of topics from same sex marriage, healthcare, welfare, etc...

A clear line between communism or socialist only exist in textbooks. In real life, it is a sliding scale of gray. There are some things, such as road and basic education and sanitation, for which communities pool recourse to provide with pretty much 100% agreement.

In between the ostensible benefits to the community, such as those mentioned about, and the classical textbook definition of communism or socialism are many shades of gray. That is where we are today in the US, and it is propagated under the guise of “good for the community”.

There is a clear point at which your version of good and my version of good depart. It is at that point people start to lose freedoms.

For example, we could say that a given diet and exercise program is good for the community, so we require all to participate. While it may be good for the community, we have taken away freedoms. At what point do we say enough is enough?

Lastly, the best chance of having a ruling class free of influence is to make it as small as possible. I find broad agreement that bigger government is more susceptible to graft and corruption, but yet people immediately turn to government looking for solutions, such as you, that is perplexing.

So you should agree with my assertion that smaller government is better government since the destruction is caused by both major parties?

Don’t count your chickens before they hatch. I’m sure Obama will do his best to buy as many votes as possible with taxpayer’s dollars, or should I say a subset of taxpayer’s dollars taken from those who are considered rich.

(-) Since passage, support has eroded because of the above and other reasons, to the present when a "healthy" majority wants it repealed.

Perhaps people are just now getting to read it.

Don’t get too excited. The article also states the following: “The insurance industry says consumers should take little comfort from the rebates, because the companies expect premiums to go up overall as a result of new benefits and other requirements of the new law.”

Government manipulation in any market segment usually means higher prices or lower quality for the consumer. The takeaway is that to consumer will lose; anyhow, we’ll get to see history unfold won’t we.

By-the-way, who are you, Mark or Lil?

Beer cigarettes are not life necessities; there is absolutely no need for tax dollars to fund that kind of activity no matter how good it makes one feel, especially when the nation can afford it.

What you keep asserting, government assistance or hillbilly hellhole, is a false dichotomy. Local and individual charity will help those in need. Moreover, since the relationships are more personal, it will be easier to identify those who are gaming the system and those who are the neediest. Government is too big and too disconnected to accomplish such a task.

Richard,

Well said. Even the house budget proposal does not go far enough albeit better than the current budget trajectory.

I’ve talked to eight graders who understand the current level of spending is not sustainable. Perhaps these kids have more wisdom that our representatives.

I’m completely perplexed why we cannot purge congress of the current way of thinking that deficits don’t matter. Perhaps Mike LeBlanc has provided the answer below.

“"wal*mart will parish if it does not add value" is an assumption.”
I think this is more than an assumption, it is a daily occurrence. Let’s look at a simple example. Say I manufacture and (attempt) to sell typewriters in the year 2012. A typewriter has little to zero value in the age of compute technology. My operations add no value to the economy. Value can be directly measured in demand and revenue needed to sustain business operations – no value, no demand, no sales, I’m out of business.
A business must always transform to keep providing value or cease to exist. There are really no assumptions about it.
“Government and Business have two separate roles which should be judged on
different sets of values.”
Doesn’t this statement support may assertion that you should not compare a private business like wal*mart to government? I then gave you one example why such is true.
Eliminate what government has created through shared investment
(taxation and government spending) and Maine would be a wilderness without
any meaningful employment

Most of Maine is a wilderness. Government did not build most of the access roads to the wilderness; they were built by the logging industry. While government has a necessary albeit small role to foster economic growth, it has and continues to exceed its original scope.

To think that there would be no infrastructure without government funding is a fallacy. People would take the initiative and form common interest to get the job done. In fact, that is how government started in the first place, and like the typewriter, government will outlive its usefulness.

“Government should hire and employ the
unemployed up to say 10 million people today for short durations as the
economic situations require.”

So where will the money come from, especially settled with the current debt. The government has to raise taxes, borrow, or print money. The former displaces money from the private sector and there is no guarantee that those government jobs would add value. Suppose the government hired those people to build typewriters for example in 2012.

The later tactic to borrow or print money simply devalues the current dollar and makes goods and services more expensive.

It is exactly this line of thinking that has gotten the US and many European economies in dire strait. We are witnessing the results of that economic policy.

In closing, balancing budgets is not an extreme concept; it’s like a law of physics. Also keep in mind that government receives trillions of dollars each year, but the U.S. infrastructure is deteriorating. That in my opinion is a red flag that government perhaps is reaching the end of its value.

Of course you have to mix the proper role of government to make your case, such as roads and national defense, with what many consider non-essential spending. If you measure efficiency by the rate in which the government spends, then perhaps you are right and government efficient at spending money.

However, if you measure efficiency in terms of producing more economic output, then the government does not do so well. Perhaps we did not need that road or bridge to nowhere or that new ship or plan. Perhaps I could have eaten a little better if my tax liability were less than paying for said projects. All you have to do is read the news to hear about the fraud and waste in government. That type of spending may help line someone’s pocket, but it does little to boost economic output.

For each person the government hires and for each project that government spends money on means that money is not available for the private sector. Comparing Wal*mart to the federal government is nonsensical since wal*mart will parish if it does not add value, that is not the case with government, they tend to tax and spend more.

In closing, I would asked the government to hire people into 100% employment if it is so efficient at creating jobs – wonder why the will never happen? Wouldn’t that be like inventing perpetual motion?

But, but, but it is BBBBBBUUUSH’s fault said in a high-pitched squeaky tone.

Good for him, why do you have to be so jealous?

Perhaps if you feel that strongly you don’t have to work for any of these individuals. You are still free in this country to own and operate your own business.

You are still free (execpt when it comes to healthcare) to not purchase their goods and services.

Now go show them who’s boss.

Ronald,
Now come on. We both know the US would still have enormous debt growth regardless of the Bush tax cuts.

I find it humorous that the discussion always goes back to Bush though.

Look at real leadership in this light. Say you go to the emergency room with a laceration. The ER doctor does not argue or place blame on how you acquired the laceration. The ER doctor commences fixing the problem.

A real leader would not play the blame game; he or she would work on fixing the problem.

Compromise in Washington equates to more spending and more taxes. There comes a time when compromise is not an option.

The government must shrink to have any hope of salvation.

Why do you think the government makes wise choses with that money anyhow?

Rome is burning and all you can think about is fornicating with my horse - bread and Circuses for all.

This problem is pervasive because there is little chance of getting fined for the reason you state. I tend to glare a people parked in handicap spot with no placard. On several occasions, I have been given the finger or offered a punch in the nose.
That speaks loads of the quality of these people.

That is unless you use welfare to supplement another source of unreported income.

Claire,
How long should society carry dead weight and at what expense? There is a point where you have to cut people lose.

Instead of looking to government for a solution to this problem as you frame it, you, with teaching background, can help the community with volunteer GED training.

Just because the government can’t or won’t solve a problem does not mean the people cannot. Moreover, the solution will likely be much more cost effective than government can provide. Perhaps you can turn this into a business to make some money - low cost GED training!

Now go seize the moment!

You’ve been silent lately. I hope all is well.

1. There is clearly a line where taxes become punitive and destructive. That line shall be draw on an individual bases. You as an individual have a limit. How many pennies on the dollar are you willing to give the government? The other fallacy in your line of thought is that you are assuming the government will spend the money it collects wisely. One just has to look at today’s corporate interest competing and winning those dollars to see what will happen if more money is sent to Washington, there is no guarantee that country will be strengthened in the end. As an example, just look at the national debt. You can confiscate all the income of the top 1% and that will not even put a dent in the dept. That is not a position of strength. Remember, all humans are subject to greed, what makes the people in government any different.
2. I guarantee that those who labor for their ricks knows where the money come and goes, especially if you definition of rich is $250K and up. All this business about progressive taxation is has little or nothing to do about success. Moreover, of one loves to pay taxes, they are welcome to pay more than they owe. Funny how I’ve never heard anyone doing so… why is that?
3. Perhaps that is the problem with progressives, what you earn is mine? Property values should be absolute. We all have a point that we’ll stop working to pay others through taxation.
4. By definition, all pay the same rate under a flat tax system, which can be expressed with mathematical precision – TAX = RATE*INCOME. Income redistribution is not a tax. Moreover, is has more to do with government policy than the rich stealing form lower income earners. Government policy has accelerated globalization. To that end, your fight should be with the government, not the rich.
5. Perhaps money is a vehicle for corruption and buys government favors today, but that is not the root cause. The root cause is giving power to the government over our lives, which leads to completion for favors to be bought and sold. If you abolish money, but not government, favors will still be bartered from the government. If you abolish government, but not money, there are no favors to be bought. This is only a hypothetical example that shows extremes and the existence of government to be bought.
In closing, it is not the rich that should concern you. What should concern you is your government selling our freedom to the highest bidder. That said, why would we give government more power over our lives.

I respectfully disagree on many points.
1. According to the tax foundation, the bottom 50% of federal tax payers contribute 2.3% of the total tax revenue, which is virtually nothing [ref http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/28007.html]
2. Moreover, the top 10% pay more than 70% of the overall revenue – isn’t that fair enough? However, people are demanding more.
3. All men should have equal opportunity, not guaranteed results. For example, if I work 80hrs a week, and comparatively make more than someone who works 40hrs a week, why should I be penalized? I traded my time for dollars, so why should someone be entailed to my earnings? That is a moral issue in itself. Is that fair?
4. If the wealthiest use the government to their advantage, which I’m not denying, your punishment via tax code will not work for by your own admission, the rich control government. Another solution is needed, is it not? Perhaps smaller government, or a flat tax, no deductions for personal income.
5. In closing, I would assert your definition of equality is subjective and vulnerable to human vagaries, such as greed. Greed is not only reserved for the wealthy. Moreover, there is a large swath of people the fall in your definition of rich that work may hour and make many sacrifices that others may not. For example, I know some well to do people that have not taken a vacation in 20 years, how is it fair to steal the sacrifices they made in the name of economic equality.
6. Lastly, let me ask a personal question. Why do you despise the more well to do?

Steve,
For every one of those letters there are many, many success stories, and I’m not talking about the 1%’ers either, how could that be?

Ray,
All that you to do is look at AMT to validate your argument.

There you go again. I used Reagan as an example of a good communicator that had the finesse to influence public opinion. However, you change the topic - nothing more, nothing less.

All that you need to do is agree or disagree that Reagan was a good communicator to stay on topic.
In that context, yes I want to bring up Reagan, and I’m sure you can keep the apples from mixing with the oranges.

If you want to discuss Reagan’s spending policy, then start a new topic.

In closing, you should use data that is up to date. Currently the national debt is greater than GDP. Year 2009 is old news.

Ben,
Perhaps you can provide the readers with at least one example of bullying.

Is the Governor really bullying, or are you just unhappy that you are not getting your way?

Please inform us.

Please give us one or more examples, so we can better understand our assertion.

As president, Obama has the power to change direction in spending – it is called the veto. At some point, you can no longer blame Bush.

As a leader, Obama is fully culpability for spending during his administration, period – the buck stops with him. He controls his signature on bills.

Obama - be a leader, take responsibility, and take action.
It is time to grow a pair and realize that Obama controls the hand that guides his signature – stop blaming the previous administration.

In 2008, the national debt was about 70% of GDP. In 2011, it surpassed 100% of GDP. Again, Obama had the power to change that trend, but he did not.

In my opinion, if the President can do nothing but point his finger, it is a sign he has no solution. A true leader, simply identifies the problem, and proposes the solution. They don’t whine and blame others.

Obama’s behavior does not exhibit leadership; it is time to get real and fix the damn sending problem.
To placate your politics, let me say that I did not agree with Bush’s spending polices either. That said, I did not bring up Bush until now for his time has passed. Obama’s time is present; it is time to shut up and fix the damn spending problem

The entire situation exemplifies Obama’s arrogance. Thank goodness for separation of powers.

Representative Hinck,

Just to be clear, can I assume that Sen. Craven was on unpaid leave or using vacation time when she traveled to Washington D.C.?

Or was she still receiving compensation form the State at that time?

This is just one of many examples why we all should support smaller government. My popular analogy is that government is like owning a dog. Big dogs make big piles, little dogs make little piles. Little piles are easier to manage.
Fix the problem at the source – get a smaller government.

Happy Birthday Al

Ed,
“I don't care about whether or not it's "technically" constitutional or not…”

We’ll some of us do for once precedence is set mandating one to buy a product, it is impossible to undo it.

Once we add up all the costs imposed due to mandates, such as insuring preexisting conditions, expanded coverage, tax credits for the poor (which will be about the bottom 50% of taxpayers according to the bill’s formula), I’m not sure that you’ll really be paying less. This is not to mention all those unknown new mandates that are sure to come. I’m sure the healthcare industry will lobby to expanded coverage, especially if we all are forced to pay for it.

Ken,

Perhaps you can cite examples, based on recorded data, of erratic temperatures? Or is this just your feeling?

Air pollution, in general, is a broad term. I’ll assume you are primarily talking about C02 emissions.

Climate (pre-historic and recorded) has and is always changing, so how can you expect to stabilize it?

Perhaps Maine can benefit from a bit of global warming, especially through the winter months. Moreover, how do Climate change proponents explain why surface temperatures have been relatively flat for the past decade?

Lastly, have you given up driving your automobile yet?

Ronald,
It has become a tradition.

Have we become that dumb as a Nation where we need a government agency to guide us?

We live in an age of advanced technology. Doesn’t one simply jump on the internet and research salary information? This information is so readily available one would be foolish not to make use of it.

If the average starting salary for an attorney is, say, $50,000.00 per year, cannot any individual bright enough to qualify for a law program determine if it is worth borrowing $200,000?

I’m really ashamed to be an American if we are that stupid. Perhaps this is just another example of a failed school system. Do we even teach about compounding interest in high school anymore?

“FACT, Keystone has NOTHING to do with domestic production, it is about getting Canadian oil refined and exported to foreign markets.”

Dan, isn’t getting more crude oil on the global market a good thing? Yes oil markets are global, but the supply and demand curve does not care.

The tax rate alone does not paint the full picture. Tax revenue has been pretty flat, about 15-20% of GDP, over the last 3 decades while spending as a percent of revenue as gone from about 25% to 38%.

Revenue flat, spending is up. Looks like a spending issue to me.

In closing, the tax-rate does not matter, revenue matters. Revenue takes into account other adjustments in the tax code, such as deductions and credits.

As a nation, we have been living beyond our means for some time. There are economic laws that persist (from 50 + years) regardless of have creative you get trying to hide the truth. It is time to bring our standard of living in line with what we can afford.

“Wall street speculators do not NEED to earn millions driving up the price of gas for no good reason”

So what do you do about the other global markets? Futures can be bought and sold globally, not just Wall-Street.

A heated futures market means buyers at betting that gasoline demand will increase or supply will decrease. Dumping supply on the market will move prices down. Similarly, removing demand, for example supporting natural gas as a gasoline alternative, will also put downward pressure on prices.

One thing is certain, not action will produce any change.

“Gas and oil prices are controlled by the global economy and speculators, not by a president.”
Does not the President influence the largest segment of the global economic? Stop making excuses for your Government.
“It would be many years before the oil is available.”
Yea, so you better start drilling now to be preparing for the future – don’t you think? This excuse always stops short of the follow-on; that is, the saturation is not going to get better, so what is wrong with taking action now. Ten years from now you’ll be saying the same old line.

“there would likely have been a complete collapse of the nation’s financial system.”
There was an alternative. Force these banks into bankruptcy to make them restructure, and provide low interest guarantees to kept assets liquid. Moreover, nothing has really changed, so I expect to be back in this situation again.

Lastly, we are still on the fast-track to complete collapse. The Federal government is spending the nation into bankruptcy. The Ryan budget proposal, which is the most aggressive, will not balance the budget until the year 2023. This is crazy. When you put the budget problem in perspective, there is NO room to compromise.

Yes, I would dispute it since the correct analog should be comparing needing a voter ID to needing an ID to purchase a weapon. Predicate to action needs an ID in both cases.

Conceal carry is not an ID, it is a permission slip. Perhaps we should require all voters to have permission slips to vote – that would be a matching analog.

Yes, Yes, and still do for my Mom.

Yes, if and only if one applies for an ID and the process is held up for an indeterminate long period of time.

Once you have an ID though, then there should be no impediment to voting – correct?

Moreover, it is more prudent to deal with issues that are occurring than those that are only speculated to occur.

Lastly, if I truly needed to protect myself, a lack of conceal carry permit would not prevent me from doing so. It is always better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Dan,
If you like the ARTs, support it with you own money. Don’t force others to support this non-essential activity.

Believe me, artiest will continue to create art without government funding.

Perhaps the public school system fears people would leave in droves for a better education, and they would not be able to fund a broken system if the money goes with the student.

Marcus Hook and Philadelphia, PA refineries.

Natural gas is fine for heating and for use in vehicles albeit natural gas has fewer BTUs per gallon than gasoline.

Like my home, many homes in this country are heated with natural gas every year without incident.
Many developing countries prefer Natural gas over gasoline because the cost per litre is much less. So you’ll say name one – Thailand for example.

Perhaps it is the fear of the unknown that inhibits you from exploring alternatives to traditional heating oil or gasoline. In that case, you’ll just have to live with the high cost of energy.

This president, much like the last one, has no national energy policy.

I personally think it would be a good thing for refineries to have competition, would you?

Claire,
In your example, the market and private industry determined when shale production was cost effective; advances in extraction technology and rising oil prices have now made it a viable alternative.

What I see coming from this administration are tactics to make an immature technology ubiquitous by artificially driving up energy cost – pretty much straight from Energy Secretary’s mouth.
We should exploit domestic energy production and let the market decide when to transition to alternative energy and from which source.

In closing, use natural gas as a gasoline replacement - it will be much cheaper.

Yes the President can influence the price at the pump. As Mr. Rhoades points out in his opinion piece, oil is a global commodity, and as such, it is subject to supply and demand pressures.

There are two ways a sitting President can lower the price if this commodity:

1. Increase supply by drilling for more oil.
2. Decrease its usage.

The President has inhibited domestic drilling; therefore, he is actually contributing to higher prices. He is definitely not interested in shifting the supply curve.

The President could champion using natural gas as an automobile fuel alternative, which could decrease demand for gasoline and therefore crude oil. The President could start replacing Washington’s automobile fleet with natural gas powered vehicles as they come up for replacement as a start. I should note that the U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of natural gas.

I have outline only two methods for a sitting President to influence prices at the pump. They are straight forward and reasonable to achieve. Now with all that said, how can someone claim the President cannot affect gasoline prices at the pump – the sitting President can but chooses not to act.

Paul,
I agree; perhaps I should have affirmed the ostensible – sometimes I just take the obvious for granted.

I’ll admit to begin paid by the Koch brothers when you admit being probed by aliens.

Until then, I’ll assert my opinion is my own. Moreover, I welcome your challenges. Life would be a bit boring otherwise.

Dan,

So you admit by implication that my comments make sense. Thank you.

Dan,

Isn’t simplistic just to say it is self evident and go on about your business – have you always taken the path of least resistance?

Betty,
First, CBO has a 100% miss rate when it comes to projecting costs of large programs, mainly because congress usually grows the program from its original intent.

Secondly, the terms deficit reduction is a misused term in Washington. The $200Billion in deficit reduction simply means that the government has reduced their projected increase – that means nothing.

Lastly, I recommend balancing your reading with opposing points of view. The URL you provide is government propaganda – just trust and verify.

Show us the proof!

While some poor stiff is working his/her tail off to pay taxes, Ronald eats prime rib at the taxpayer’s expense.

Way to export your high-spending politician to now damage the nation. Too bad these people will not just go the way of the dinosaur – extinct.

Ronald,

That is not unusual for they know the value of money and keeping it in their own pocket, nothing wrong with that behavior. A good lesson that I learned over time is that all prices are negotiable.

I even have a 50% success rate negotiating prices with Walmart. Consider a package of underwear that has been opened and taped up – who wants to pay full price when I can pick up a package that is pristine right next to it.

Find the manager and make an offer. This does not always work, but it keeps me in inexpensive underwear.

Claire,
You are not unlike most people when it comes to money.

Just read your post. Your first thought turns to how you are going to spend your newly acquired wealth.

My first thought is how can I turn this into more money, like buy two rental properties and invest the remainder in Vanguard GNMA bond fund; note that $500,000.00 is not very much these days, especially when our health sours with age.

This is the fundamental difference in thinking that sets people apart when it comes to finances.

Ten bucks says see would be back in the same situation as she is now since she has failed to learn how to make money work in her self interest. She would be singing different tune if she know how to create wealth.

Perhaps we are at a historical crossroad. Which direction are we going to take the country – into bankruptcy or slowly back into solvency?

We both know where we each stand on the issue.
There is no room for compromise, or should I say there is no money for compromise.

Dan,

We are a representative republic, not a democracy. The system was established as a republic to prevent public opinion from trampling the rights of the minority. The filibuster is proof the system is working well.

Yawn…

“The Maine Republican Party thinks government intervention and price oversight are unnecessary in a competitive market, and that health insurance premiums are self-regulating.”

Your argument is premised on a free market, which does not exist today. This is government’s fault for mandating care and blocking out-of-state providers, protecting local markets.

Moreover, as long as no one has skin in the game, people will not force competitiveness in the market place. For example, if I only have to pay a $20.00-$40.00 co-pay, why should I care about the overall expense? Why should I seek lower cost, equally effective, alternatives?

Look at what competition has done for the affordability of elective cosmetic surgery or Lasik eye correction surgery.

Ronald,
Unfortunately roofing nails don’t discriminate between speeders and non-speeders. Moreover, you could severely injure someone, such as forcing a blowout on a motorcycle rider.

This is not a very bright suggestion on your part.

Yes we want to save money. Let’s face reality; there is just not enough tax revenue to take care of all the social ills under ideal circumstances. That being said, limits have to be introduced to bound expenses. The alternative is to provide no methadone treatment. Like it or not, these are the constraints we have to deal with.