$19 Billion for What?

Friday, May 15, 2009

Posted by JA Railton

The idea of making medical records electronic throughout the country is unquestionably practical. This is a question of convenience for the medical facilities more than anything. Electronic records are much easier to transfer, to standardize and to secure.  I personally have no problem with having an electronic record. Because the technology is there, and there's a cost-savings, it's inevitable, that this will eventually be the standard. As far as privacy goes, electronic records will be no less private than are hard copies of medical files.

However, for lack of a better term, it always ticks me off when I find that the government feels that they need to get involved with, and to pay for such things.  $19 billion of our tax dollars to accelerate the use of electronic medical records!!! Why??

Let the industries that will benefit pay for it for themselves if they so choose! I work in an information technology position of a hospital and my girlfriend is a medical student. I know, without a doubt, that the industry is moving forward with this, whether it's paid for by the citizens or not. This sort of expense is simply not a part of any of the branches of government that were established by the founders of this country.

Nonetheless, I understand that regulation and procedures should be put in place and enforced through federal laws. This is part of protecting the citizens, which is a government role.

Letter to the President's Economic Council

Posted by JA Railton

The state of the economy of the United States has deteriorated to a point where drastic action is necessary. This crisis calls for a complete overhaul of the tax and welfare systems of the country. My plan is two-fold.

First, I am recommending that we migrate to a flat income tax system.  In the current system, many people do not pay income tax at all, or receive a refund for all monies withheld by their employers.  Others, the middle and upper class, pick up the slack for the others.  It has been estimated that the top 1% of income earners pay nearly 40% of the taxes.  This is nothing short of income redistribution and is far from fair, penalizing those that work harder and hold themselves to higher standards.  

Also, the current income tax code has become so complicated, that it is nearly impossible for average people to estimate how much they've paid or will have to pay.  A flat tax would take the mystery out of the tax system.  In addition, it would likely bring in more tax revenue for the country.  I can't give a number at this time, but let's work with 15% as a model.  If all income-earners paid a flat 15%, all taxes would be collected by means of employer withholding, and there would be no need for a "settlement day" which is what April 15 has become.  The government would receive their monies sooner and be able to considerably downsize the Internal Revenue Service.

I urge you to add this to your agenda and work with Congress to push the flat tax through.  The savings would be immediate and the feeling of morale among the citizens would rapidly improve, causing the country to become more wealthy as a whole.  

Secondly, it can't be denied that there are members of this country that cannot or will not provide for themselves.  These people should be taken care of by other citizens that choose to do so. However, a taxpayer should never be forced to contribute.  As an incentive, the flat tax percentage should be lessened for individuals and businesses that choose to donate to government-approved charities in the form of time and/or cash.  For example, volunteering for a charity would earn John Doe a voucher that when turned into his employer, would cause his withholding amount to be lowered by 1% over the course of a certain amount of time.  Taxpayers should be allowed to lessen their % paid by up to 5% by utilizing this system.

These are ideas that will require some time for development and number-crunching.  I believe this is just the sort of thing that our country needs in order to become self-sufficient and successful.  

How Much Government Would You Like Today?

Posted by JA Railton

Anyone who listens to radio, watches television or reads newspapers has heard the terms “conservatism” and “liberalism” being spoken and/or written by journalists belonging to all mediums. My personal take is that the majority of Americans do not fully understand the meanings of these two widely used expressions. I’ve read various complicated definitions of liberalism and conservatism, but it’s clear to me that the meanings of the terms are actually extremely simple. Liberals hold to a general ideology that government can and should be actively involved in solving societal problems. Conservatives believe the opposite; that government should have very little involvement; that individuals can and should be responsible for solving their own problems. Generally speaking, the issue involves the size of government, which directly affects the role of government.

Although the differentiation between these designations are cut and dried, there are unfair stereotypes associated with people that describe themselves as liberal and those that call themselves conservative. For example, some believe that all conservatives are dull, religious traditionalists and all liberals are easy-going, pot-smoking hippies. But what do these generalizations have to do with one’s preference concerning the ideal amount of government? Nothing! These descriptions are cliché, but they often do not apply. Even so, it’s easy to compare and contrast these two groups of people by carefully and responsibly examining the issues of which they promote and those of which they oppose. The paragraphs to follow contain my attempt to do as such.

Conservatives are often regarded as being patriotic in that they appreciate the foundation laid out by the politicians who fabricated our constitution. This is not to say that conservatives believe that liberals are not patriotic. It’s very uncommon to meet a member of any American group who speaks negatively about the governmental ideals put forth by our forefathers. Nonetheless, liberals typically express their ideas as “improvements” to a system that they believe must evolve in order to accommodate a country that is constantly changing. Conservatism holds to the mantra, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” In other words, a conservative might say that this country was built on traditional values, personal freedoms and economic systems such as capitalism that have helped us become what we are today and it doesn’t make sense to start doing the opposite just for the sake of change.

One thing that has changed recently is the state of the economy. It is painfully clear that conservatives and liberals have different views as to what actions might be instrumental in “fixing” the economy. Many liberals have adopted the philosophy of John Maynard Keynes, a British economist whose career peaked during the time of The Great Depression. Basically, his idea, which was not adopted at the time, was to offset a crippled economy through increased, targeted government spending. Keynes believed that this would help the economy because the extra money being spent by the government would benefit American companies, which would benefit American workers who would be able to work for the companies that were being patronized by the government. President Barack Obama, a liberal, has adopted a similar approach with his nearly $1 trillion “stimulus” package. Among conservatives, it is widely believed that such spending is irresponsible, especially during an economic crisis; that any kind of federal stimulus should come in the form of tax cuts for all tax-paying Americans. The main conservative argument is that if the government allows Americans to keep more of their own money, they will soon start to spend more money, boosting the economy. Conservatives are particularly upset about the current stimulus package because they believe that we and our children and our grandchildren will be paying the price for this spending for many years to come.

There are several rather controversial issues on which conservatives and liberals strongly disagree. Among them are abortion, capital punishment and same-sex marriage. These are issues that don’t necessarily have anything to do with the size of government. Nonetheless, liberals and conservatives seem to have clear-cut positions in regard to these subjects. It must be noted, however, that these are not the issues that define people as liberal or conservative. It is perfectly valid for a conservative to hold the general liberal view on this sort of topic and vice versa.

In general, conservatives see abortion as a violation of the rights of an unborn child. Liberals regard abortion as a woman’s right to eliminate a parasite that is growing inside her own body. This particular matter has become exceedingly heated because of the fact that emotion-based opinions are understandably involved. Both sides agree that murder is wrong, so this issue has become an argument over the definition of murder. It is the popular liberal opinion that killing an unborn child is not murder. Conservatives wholeheartedly disagree. They hold that an unborn child is a living human being and should have a right to survive regardless of his or her mother’s decisions.

Capital punishment is supported by many conservatives, who feel that those who do not abide by certain rules set forth by our constitution should be eliminated if found guilty after a fair trial. Liberals customarily oppose capital punishment on the basis that they believe that the unlawful citizen can and should be rehabilitated by the government. Some liberals believe that the government fails to provide some citizens with what they need in order to avoid acting out through crime. Conversely, conservatives may feel that it isn’t the job of the government to rehabilitate criminals; that they should do for themselves rather than using up taxpayer funds for a process that rarely results in a true rehabilitation.

A third and equally controversial topic is that of the allowance of same-sex marriage in our country. Those that are of the opinion that the definition of marriage should retain its description of being between one man and one woman, can usually be described as politically conservative. Liberals tend to disagree. The standard liberal feeling is that government should not be involved in such a personal decision; that same-sex couples should be given the same benefits as those that are involved in traditional man-woman marriages. Although it varies, my experience has been that conservatives are mostly okay with another institution, such as a civil union, as long as the definition of marriage is not changed.

What this comes down to is a matter of vision. Political ideology is about how a person sees their country in its ideal condition. The ways in which conservatives and liberals are different are easy to point out. In terms of ideology, similarities among the two are few and far between. Be that as it may, non-ideological parallels are certainly evident. Case in point, both sides believe that they hold the solution to the majority of the nation’s problems. Also, both sides are lacking in some way in that each side avoids certain issues altogether. In addition, liberals and conservatives alike are practicing their rights as Americans to express their views concerning government. This is a privilege that is not realized in many other countries. Most importantly, it is plain to me that both groups love their country, which is a comparison well worth noting.

Federal Name-calling… You Can No Longer Speak Freely

Saturday, May 9, 2009

Posted by JA Railton

On April 7, 2009, the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, a division of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), released a report titled “Right wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” The thrust of the report is that “right wing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues.” It is implied that the country is currently in a unique situation, mentioning the economic instability, that we have elected our first African-American president, and that right wing extremists are not pleased with some of the recent acts of the administration in terms of policy. The writer of the DHS report believes that characteristics of the country’s current situation present a perfect storm; an environment that right wing extremist groups may take advantage of in order to acquire new members.

Because of the tone of this report and that of other similar statements and implications, it is my assessment that there will be a newfound, pronounced hesitation among Americans as to whether they should voice their opinions in regard to matters in which they feel strongly. In recent months, the United States government has shown its willingness to officially speak negatively of the opinions and values of scores of its own citizens. This is another phenomenon that will likely be intensified in the coming years, silencing the genuine beliefs and opinions of the population, including both conservative and liberal citizens.

Many conservatives are up in arms over the DHS report, claiming that it uses language that could portray traditional and conservative value organizations as “hate groups.” In addition, a number of veterans are upset that the report singles them out as being in danger of recruitment by the so called “right wing extremist” groups. Countless veterans have taken this as an insult in that it implies that the administration sees them as being weak and willing to hurt their country, even after they have proudly served to fight for our freedom. Some conservative bloggers have expressed that the report is propaganda designed by the leaders of what they call WACO, a term recently coined, meaning the War Against Conservative Opinion. However, most conservatives don’t claim that WACO is an organized effort, but rather a name for the collective willingness to belittle conservative opinions; an attitude that some politicians and bias news media have developed.

After their report was leaked out to the public, the Department of Homeland Security learned that some felt offended over its broad definition of hate groups and its intimation that returning Iraqi war veterans are especially susceptible to recruitment by hate groups seeking to find new members that are capable of violence. Subsequently, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said that she “regrets that some people took offense over the report.” In an interview, Ms. Napolitano referred to a similar January 26, 2009 report that was geared toward left wing extremists. Commentators point out, though, that the aforementioned report, which warned of possible left wing extremism in the form of cyber attacks, was very specific as to which organizations were seen as a threat. It was not implied that law enforcement should be on the lookout for those that hold to typical left wing views on issues such as freedom of choice, environmentalism and homosexual marriage. Though very subtle, these types of implications were certainly present in this month’s report warning of right wing extremism.

A footnote on the second page of the report states that “Right wing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment…It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.” The general conservative feeling is that it is reasonable for the Department of Homeland Security to send reports to law enforcement agencies when it has become aware of a specific threat of violence or a particular situation where spontaneous violence is likely. After all, violence is illegal and law enforcement officials should have as much legally obtained intelligence as possible in preventing crime. Conversely, having right wing opinions and belonging to religious groups or action groups that call for an end to abortion or homosexual marriage is not illegal and those (given that they are not breaking the law) involved in such activity should not be demonized in a country where freedom of expression is regularly encouraged.

It is clear, however, that the document’s definition of right wing extremism is drafted in a way that lumps violent terrorist groups into the same category as conservative interest groups that feel strongly against issues such as size of government, abortion or homosexuality. This categorization of conservative interest groups is the primary device that will spur one of the most dreadful effects of this report and other federal documents and statements that utilize such jargon. That is, citizens of a country that was founded on the idea of freedom of speech, opinion and religion, will be afraid to speak out about their beliefs if their feelings aren’t aligned with the goals and values of the federal government.

I personally have found myself looking in every direction to see who is around before discussing dissatisfaction with President Obama’s economic stimulus plan with friends. I wouldn’t want to be labeled as someone who isn’t patriotic. Should the old mantra, stating that “you shouldn’t talk about politics or religion” be replaced with “you shouldn’t talk about politics (if your opinion differs from those in charge) or religion?” It must be noted that such calamity is not only done at the hands of the democratic Obama administration. The Patriot Act, which was promoted and put into effect by the republican Bush administration included a definition of “terrorist” that left something to be desired. The language is a bit broad and it can be construed that any person that does not share the goals of the United States government is a terrorist. When thinking about the way the federal government is evolving, George Orwell’s Animal Farm comes to mind. In the story, which the author wrote as a satirical expression of communism, inhabitants (other animals) of the farm that didn't agree with the leaders (the pigs) were ridiculed, silenced, and punished.

There is no doubt that in recent years, an ideological war between two opposing views of what our country should be has been blooming. As the issues have become more intense and emotionally-charged, both sides have become more bold in opposition to the other. For example, soon after his inauguration, President Barak Obama warned republicans that they should “stop listening to Rush Limbaugh” if they want to get anything done. A far cry from his promises of bipartisanship, this comment was seen as a horrible insult to conservatives and their vision of what government should be. Coming from the leader of the free world, such remarks can lead a conservative to believe that the federal government views his or her beliefs as unimportant and un-American. But more importantly, the very fact that Mr. Obama made such comments is a telltale sign that the political climate of our country is changing.

Several liberal lawmakers would like to see a specific change in our country. Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois and Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa have both proclaimed interest in reinstating The Fairness Doctrine. This was a policy put forth by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1949. Individuals and organizations that held broadcast licenses were legally obligated to give equal airtime to both sides when mentioning controversial issues. Because conservatives have found their niche in the talk radio industry, some see this sudden democratic interest in reinstating the policy as a strategy to silence those who are instrumental in delivering conservative commentary. Until now, The Fairness Doctrine has received very little attention since it was abolished in 1987. After the Obama administration announced that it had no plans to re-enable the policy, Senators Harken and Durbin seem to have given up on the idea, at least for the time being. Still, the fact that this was even considered is another indication that federal leaders may be interested in silencing those that oppose them.

How long then, will it be before certain opinions are illegal to express? Will peaceful protests become illegal? Will an essay such as this be forwarded on to the Department of Homeland Security as a warning that the writer could be violent or part of a hate group? A conspiracy theorist would say that these things are inevitable. I would say that it’s the direction in which we are heading.