Not so long ago, when Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House, the name they called John Boehner (among others) was simply Leader of the Party of No. Since replacing Pelosi as Speaker after the Democrats got their butts handed to them in the 2010 elections, Boehner has actually earned my respect, off and on.
After all, John Boehner may be one of the only people who is comfortable with weeping in public, much less at the podium, in front of all of Congress. While some say, "MAN UP ALREADY," I have to give him props for being a man so comfortable with his emotional ups and downs. Few men, and a large number of women (myself included), can claim the same.
All that aside, this last week of the debt-ceiling fight has not been one of the times when Boehner earned my respect. Increasingly over the past several weeks, he seems to have forgotten what his new title is and has fallen back on his old title. Maybe it is the one he feels most comfortable with. But, really, if he's going to do that, he should give Pelosi the gavel back and let her run the show again. Lord knows, aside from the inability to get a budget passed, Nancy Pelosi got plenty of other things done (including the first healthcare reform bill), and if she were Speaker now, we wouldn't be sweating out the last few hours before the U.S. hits the default wall.
See, what Pelosi understood was that her title was Speaker of the House. Her title was not Speaker for Democrats in the House. When she was Speaker, House Republicans did all they could to make her job as difficult as possible (in part thanks to Boehner as well as the party's largest weasel, also known as Eric Cantor), but Nancy Pelosi still did whatever she could to wrangle members on both sides of the aisle and get the majority of them moving in the proper direction.
Not too long after Boehner accepted the gavel from Pelosi, Boehner started to abandon his role as Wrangler-in-Chief and started to play only in the Tea Party's playground. It's a playground full of bullies and spoiled brats who are used to getting their way, and only their way. But, rather than shove back and demand that the bullies and brats quiet down and learn to play nice with others, as Nancy Pelosi would have, Boehner curled up in a fetal position and let them have their way.
Again. And, again. And, again.
Honestly, he's not the first Speaker to fall victim to this behavior and cater only to the loudest, meanest members, and he probably won't be the last. But, if he thinks being the biggest whipping boy in the room will help him maintain power, he's sorely mistaken. If nothing else, having to repeatedly delay the vote on his bill, because he couldn't get his party in line and no one from the other side of the aisle either, should have taught him this.
Hopefully, Boehner will figure out soon what other great leaders already know. Not everyone has to like the policies you push for them to respect you, and governing isn't about your side versus their side.
More often than not, the one who stands up to the bullies, the one pushing for ways to better the country rather than burn it, those are the ones who are most remembered and respected at the end. No one ever remembers the whipping boy as anything other than the one who was repeatedly beaten down.
Nancy Pelosi knew this, and so she pushed as hard as she could, as often as she could. And, in the end, people who don't listen to the talking heads and meanies on the right know that Nancy Pelosi was a great Speaker for the House. It still remains to be seen how John Boehner's tenure as Speaker will go into the history books.
---
I had intended to post this piece early on Friday, but other commitments kept me from doing so. Late on Friday, The Washington Post's Ezra Klein posted a blog piece that parallels a lot of my thinking on the subject above. You can find his article here. Please check it out. I found it to be a good read.
-- Penn, contributor
Penn is also the co-author of Toasted Filberts. Check out her blog here.
7.31.2011
7.24.2011
WHERE ARE MY NEW TAXES?!
As the debate about the debt-ceiling, deficit, and new government budget rages on, we at The Ranter's Row decided it was time to throw our own opinions into the cyclone.
We find the stalemate as ridiculous as most of the rest of the country does, and we don't understand why the various sides are entrenched against modifying the tax codes and entitlement programs, or increasing taxes. We're generally against cutting funds, but we're also aware that some spending does need to be cut in order to have the balanced approach President Obama keeps pushing, so we'll leave those out of this post.
Let's address each of the other points, however.
REFORMING THE TAX CODE
If you do your own taxes, you know that the United States has one of the most complex and complicated tax systems in the world. There are so many seemingly conflicting rules and loopholes that it's no wonder that most people who are not CPAs dread when April 15th comes around each year. It has little to do with how much in taxes we may actually owe. So, tell us, who wouldn't welcome a revision of that archaic system?
Will it hurt to lose deductions for mortgage interest and the ability to have our medical premiums deducted from our income pre-taxes? Absolutely. But, if that's what it takes to close other loopholes that benefit corporations that rake in billions in profits and only the highest of earners, then so be it. We're willing to take some pain on ourselves to spread the pain equally amongst all.
Please don't give us the argument that closing loopholes that benefit corporations keeps them from increasing their work forces. Do you honestly think that taxes are what drives hiring and firing? Corporations drive their hiring practices based on their profit margins, which are driven by how many people are buying their products and services far more than what they pay out in taxes each year. The equation is simple: the less people working, the lower the profit margin for corporations. Increases in their hiring increases the number of people working, which increases how many people buy their products and services. Notice how taxes are not part of this equation at all. Corporations don't hire because the consumer demand isn't high enough. That's all there is to it.
CHANGES TO ENTITLEMENTS
In the interest of full disclosure, none of us are old enough or close to old enough to collect Social Security or utilize Medicare. However, some of us have parents or relatives that can or do, or are close to being able to.
That said, we feel that it's time to give some ground on the idea of reforming entitlement programs. Social Security and Medicare need no longer be seen as more than a safety net for seniors and the disabled. People need to learn to take care of themselves to some degree. None of the entitlement programs were intended to be the sole income or health plan for the retired and disabled. They were intended to bridge the gap between retirement savings and personal healthcare plans. They have become relied upon as the only source by those unwilling or unable to better plan for the eventuality of old age or the misfortune of disability.
Simply put, some reductions and modifications need to be made, but not eradication. We're not at all suggesting that seniors or the disabled be kicked out into the cold without any aid whatsoever. That would be taking our more or less enlightened society and punching it down several notches. However, with the growing number of adults able to collect on these programs and a drecreasing number of people able to pay into them, changes need to be made.
Changes to entitlements do not ultimately hurt seniors, no matter what the Democrats tell you (and Republicans, when it suits their politcal needs). What hurts them is the insolvency of the programs. If the programs continue as they are now and become bankrupt, as they inevitably will without changes, that will definitely hurt seniors and the disabled. So, course corrections need to be made to these programs prior to reaching the dead end.
RAISING TAXES
None of us at The Ranter's Row are rich and powerful, or poor and voiceless. We're mainly middle-of-the-road earners. We still see the value of increased taxes. No one likes to lose more out of their paycheck each month when food costs are high and energy costs continue to rise. But, without revenue, the federal government and state governments cannot function. They cannot fund defense programs. They cannot fund education. They cannot fund the entitlement programs so many hold dear.
We're sick and tired of the "not in my back yard" attitude that so many seem to carry when it comes to taxes. Grow up. Adults pay taxes.
It is preferable to us that those who earn more should pay more. After all, isn't it some pretty simple math that as your earnings increase, so should your tax rate? It is dispicable politics that the Republicans should try to shield such a small percentage of their constituents at the expense of everyone else. However, if it must be that all tax levels feel some of the burn in order to make the tax system more fair across the board, then so be it.
Our country is called the United States. Not the States of Me and Not You. We must be united in our willingness to all pitch in to pull our country out of the mess that a minority have steered us into. And, for anyone not willing to stand up for the financial solvency and stability of our states and country, they are welcome to leave.
-- Statler, Conrad, and the rest of the Row
We find the stalemate as ridiculous as most of the rest of the country does, and we don't understand why the various sides are entrenched against modifying the tax codes and entitlement programs, or increasing taxes. We're generally against cutting funds, but we're also aware that some spending does need to be cut in order to have the balanced approach President Obama keeps pushing, so we'll leave those out of this post.
Let's address each of the other points, however.
REFORMING THE TAX CODE
If you do your own taxes, you know that the United States has one of the most complex and complicated tax systems in the world. There are so many seemingly conflicting rules and loopholes that it's no wonder that most people who are not CPAs dread when April 15th comes around each year. It has little to do with how much in taxes we may actually owe. So, tell us, who wouldn't welcome a revision of that archaic system?
Will it hurt to lose deductions for mortgage interest and the ability to have our medical premiums deducted from our income pre-taxes? Absolutely. But, if that's what it takes to close other loopholes that benefit corporations that rake in billions in profits and only the highest of earners, then so be it. We're willing to take some pain on ourselves to spread the pain equally amongst all.
Please don't give us the argument that closing loopholes that benefit corporations keeps them from increasing their work forces. Do you honestly think that taxes are what drives hiring and firing? Corporations drive their hiring practices based on their profit margins, which are driven by how many people are buying their products and services far more than what they pay out in taxes each year. The equation is simple: the less people working, the lower the profit margin for corporations. Increases in their hiring increases the number of people working, which increases how many people buy their products and services. Notice how taxes are not part of this equation at all. Corporations don't hire because the consumer demand isn't high enough. That's all there is to it.
CHANGES TO ENTITLEMENTS
In the interest of full disclosure, none of us are old enough or close to old enough to collect Social Security or utilize Medicare. However, some of us have parents or relatives that can or do, or are close to being able to.
That said, we feel that it's time to give some ground on the idea of reforming entitlement programs. Social Security and Medicare need no longer be seen as more than a safety net for seniors and the disabled. People need to learn to take care of themselves to some degree. None of the entitlement programs were intended to be the sole income or health plan for the retired and disabled. They were intended to bridge the gap between retirement savings and personal healthcare plans. They have become relied upon as the only source by those unwilling or unable to better plan for the eventuality of old age or the misfortune of disability.
Simply put, some reductions and modifications need to be made, but not eradication. We're not at all suggesting that seniors or the disabled be kicked out into the cold without any aid whatsoever. That would be taking our more or less enlightened society and punching it down several notches. However, with the growing number of adults able to collect on these programs and a drecreasing number of people able to pay into them, changes need to be made.
Changes to entitlements do not ultimately hurt seniors, no matter what the Democrats tell you (and Republicans, when it suits their politcal needs). What hurts them is the insolvency of the programs. If the programs continue as they are now and become bankrupt, as they inevitably will without changes, that will definitely hurt seniors and the disabled. So, course corrections need to be made to these programs prior to reaching the dead end.
RAISING TAXES
None of us at The Ranter's Row are rich and powerful, or poor and voiceless. We're mainly middle-of-the-road earners. We still see the value of increased taxes. No one likes to lose more out of their paycheck each month when food costs are high and energy costs continue to rise. But, without revenue, the federal government and state governments cannot function. They cannot fund defense programs. They cannot fund education. They cannot fund the entitlement programs so many hold dear.
We're sick and tired of the "not in my back yard" attitude that so many seem to carry when it comes to taxes. Grow up. Adults pay taxes.
It is preferable to us that those who earn more should pay more. After all, isn't it some pretty simple math that as your earnings increase, so should your tax rate? It is dispicable politics that the Republicans should try to shield such a small percentage of their constituents at the expense of everyone else. However, if it must be that all tax levels feel some of the burn in order to make the tax system more fair across the board, then so be it.
Our country is called the United States. Not the States of Me and Not You. We must be united in our willingness to all pitch in to pull our country out of the mess that a minority have steered us into. And, for anyone not willing to stand up for the financial solvency and stability of our states and country, they are welcome to leave.
-- Statler, Conrad, and the rest of the Row
7.21.2011
BUYING OUT CHILDHOOD
While perusing the New York Times this evening, I came across a picture of a treehouse which most every kid and kid-at-heart would die for. The article was entitled "Child's Play, Grown-Up Cash". It discussed some of the high end playhouses that parents have purchased for their children.
As someone who will be a parent, probably within the next year, I understand the desire to provide children with things that I was not able to have when I was a child. But, I think that spending $50,000 (or more) on a playhouse (not the awesome treehouse) that boasts a working kitchen, two floors, vaulted ceilings, and a 32-inch flat-screen TV is going too far, way too far. I will give them a pass on the A/C, though, considering the climate where this playhouse is located.
In the middle of the worst economy most of us have lived to see, what do we teach children by spending such ridiculous sums of money on things they really don't need and many children's parents can't afford? We teach them that there really is such a thing as the "haves" and "have nots", and those that have should lavish their children with the kind of gifts that the have not parents can only dream of giving their kids. We teach them to flaunt what they can do with their privelege.
I don't begrudge the parents profiled in the article who spent $2,000 - $5,000 on a well-made and chock-full of fun playhouse. Those types of custom playhouses don't require a second mortgage and an appraisal. Many parents (although, by no means all) who save wisely can give their children a similar experience.
When I was a child, I was ecstatic when my parents gave my brother and I a box that previously housed the dishwasher they had just purchased. To us, it was huge and perfect, and we immediately set to work making our new playhouse out of it. We had endless hours of fun with that box/playhouse, and it only cost the price of a new dishwasher.
I'm not saying I will definitely relegate my children to boxes if I can afford a little more. I won't be spending the price of a full-sized home on anything I do purchase for them, however. And, I certainly will make sure they value their imaginations over the material where I can. A few plain boxes can become a whole city if children want them to. That is what I want to teach my children.
--Statler
As someone who will be a parent, probably within the next year, I understand the desire to provide children with things that I was not able to have when I was a child. But, I think that spending $50,000 (or more) on a playhouse (not the awesome treehouse) that boasts a working kitchen, two floors, vaulted ceilings, and a 32-inch flat-screen TV is going too far, way too far. I will give them a pass on the A/C, though, considering the climate where this playhouse is located.
In the middle of the worst economy most of us have lived to see, what do we teach children by spending such ridiculous sums of money on things they really don't need and many children's parents can't afford? We teach them that there really is such a thing as the "haves" and "have nots", and those that have should lavish their children with the kind of gifts that the have not parents can only dream of giving their kids. We teach them to flaunt what they can do with their privelege.
I don't begrudge the parents profiled in the article who spent $2,000 - $5,000 on a well-made and chock-full of fun playhouse. Those types of custom playhouses don't require a second mortgage and an appraisal. Many parents (although, by no means all) who save wisely can give their children a similar experience.
When I was a child, I was ecstatic when my parents gave my brother and I a box that previously housed the dishwasher they had just purchased. To us, it was huge and perfect, and we immediately set to work making our new playhouse out of it. We had endless hours of fun with that box/playhouse, and it only cost the price of a new dishwasher.
I'm not saying I will definitely relegate my children to boxes if I can afford a little more. I won't be spending the price of a full-sized home on anything I do purchase for them, however. And, I certainly will make sure they value their imaginations over the material where I can. A few plain boxes can become a whole city if children want them to. That is what I want to teach my children.
--Statler
7.10.2011
A "WELL, DUH" MOMENT: PESTICIDES AREN'T SAFE FOR HUMANS
Back in May, I saw this article in the Washington Post by Sue Eisenfeld about the after-effects of having her home sprayed for fleas. I didn't post on it back then, even though it caught the eye of this avid ranter. Since it was recently posted again on the Washington Post's "Health & Science" page, I decided to post on it now.
I'll sum up the article for everyone, since it's an interesting but quite long read.
Ms. Eisenfeld's cat seemed to be having flea issues (excessive licking) that weren't resolved by "topical anti-flea drops", so her next step was to call the exterminator and sign up for a spray-based flea treatment. The floors and carpets were sprayed while she, her husband, and the cat were out of the house. When they returned, the residue from the spray was all over the floor. The exterminator company told her to just mop it up. The next day she had strange physical symptoms - headache, dizziness, stinging in arms and torso - and from there her symptoms just got worse and lasted for several weeks. After an investigation, she found that there's a very long EPA report on the toxicity of the chemicals used and that many others have experienced much of the same reaction she did.
The purpose of Ms. Eisenfeld's article is no doubt to warn us all that:
Here's what I got:
Before bombing your house for fleas, talk to your vet. Excessive licking can be caused by more than fleas, like allergies to environmental irritants or food. I know this from experience with my own cat. Would I ever call an exterminator to spray for fleas? NEVER, EVER, EVER!
I also decided that she hadn't used any common sense after choosing to have her house sprayed either. On page 2 of the article, Ms. Eisenfeld said she found the pesticide label online. Here's a clip of this section:
"What this told me was that the technician had not given me enough information. The label instructs users to cover all food-processing surfaces, utensils and exposed food prior to spraying. We hadn’t been told to do anything like that — to remove the dishes sitting out on our drying rack, to cover our cutting board or the fruit and vegetables on our counter.
The label directs pesticide applicators to avoid thoroughly wetting the surfaces being sprayed. Yet there had been those drops on the floor six hours later. It also says that the sprayed area should be ventilated after treatment. News to us."
You needed the technician from the exterminator company to tell you to put away your food and clean dishes, vent your house after the application, and then wipe down the counters where you prepare and serve food? Really?
Common sense says, if you have a toxic chemical sprayed in your house (and ALL pesticides not food or essential-oil derived fit into this category), you first put everything away and then wipe down all surfaces afterwards. Otherwise, you definitely run the risk of having happen to you what happened to Ms. Eisenfeld.
Here's a list of the possible side effects the chemical used in this case can produce (see page 3 of the article):
"Among the complaints in the moderate and major medical incidents were dizziness, difficulty breathing, difficulty swallowing, muscle weakness, tremors, abdominal pain, disorientation, stumbling, coma, seizure, liver failure, lethargy, numbness, blurred vision, chills, blood in the urine, memory loss, migraines, inability to walk and heart attack."
I'm not going to argue that consumers shouldn't be warned as to possible side effects of a pesticide. I do agree that companies that use and apply these chemicals should be required to inform their customers as to the dangers, before proceeding. As Sue Eisenfeld points out, most contractors, home sellers, and landlords are required to distribute information about lead paint and asbestos dangers. Exterminators and other service providers that apply toxic chemicals should be similarly required to provide warnings.
However, trusting that the exterminator or lawn care professional (sometimes Hazmat suit-wearing ones) will give you all necessary health warnings is naive at best. Besides pressuring chemical companies to come clean about the dangers they are exposing us to, we also need to arm ourselves with some common sense. That's the easiest way to avoid the "well, DUH" moment.
-- Statler, moderator
I'll sum up the article for everyone, since it's an interesting but quite long read.
Ms. Eisenfeld's cat seemed to be having flea issues (excessive licking) that weren't resolved by "topical anti-flea drops", so her next step was to call the exterminator and sign up for a spray-based flea treatment. The floors and carpets were sprayed while she, her husband, and the cat were out of the house. When they returned, the residue from the spray was all over the floor. The exterminator company told her to just mop it up. The next day she had strange physical symptoms - headache, dizziness, stinging in arms and torso - and from there her symptoms just got worse and lasted for several weeks. After an investigation, she found that there's a very long EPA report on the toxicity of the chemicals used and that many others have experienced much of the same reaction she did.
The purpose of Ms. Eisenfeld's article is no doubt to warn us all that:
- Exterminators don't always know what they're doing.
- Just because warnings should be delivered about a pesticide, doesn't mean they will be.
- Pesticide companies are often not our friends and will do whatever they can to fool you into thinking their products are safe.
Here's what I got:
Before bombing your house for fleas, talk to your vet. Excessive licking can be caused by more than fleas, like allergies to environmental irritants or food. I know this from experience with my own cat. Would I ever call an exterminator to spray for fleas? NEVER, EVER, EVER!
I also decided that she hadn't used any common sense after choosing to have her house sprayed either. On page 2 of the article, Ms. Eisenfeld said she found the pesticide label online. Here's a clip of this section:
"What this told me was that the technician had not given me enough information. The label instructs users to cover all food-processing surfaces, utensils and exposed food prior to spraying. We hadn’t been told to do anything like that — to remove the dishes sitting out on our drying rack, to cover our cutting board or the fruit and vegetables on our counter.
The label directs pesticide applicators to avoid thoroughly wetting the surfaces being sprayed. Yet there had been those drops on the floor six hours later. It also says that the sprayed area should be ventilated after treatment. News to us."
You needed the technician from the exterminator company to tell you to put away your food and clean dishes, vent your house after the application, and then wipe down the counters where you prepare and serve food? Really?
Common sense says, if you have a toxic chemical sprayed in your house (and ALL pesticides not food or essential-oil derived fit into this category), you first put everything away and then wipe down all surfaces afterwards. Otherwise, you definitely run the risk of having happen to you what happened to Ms. Eisenfeld.
Here's a list of the possible side effects the chemical used in this case can produce (see page 3 of the article):
"Among the complaints in the moderate and major medical incidents were dizziness, difficulty breathing, difficulty swallowing, muscle weakness, tremors, abdominal pain, disorientation, stumbling, coma, seizure, liver failure, lethargy, numbness, blurred vision, chills, blood in the urine, memory loss, migraines, inability to walk and heart attack."
I'm not going to argue that consumers shouldn't be warned as to possible side effects of a pesticide. I do agree that companies that use and apply these chemicals should be required to inform their customers as to the dangers, before proceeding. As Sue Eisenfeld points out, most contractors, home sellers, and landlords are required to distribute information about lead paint and asbestos dangers. Exterminators and other service providers that apply toxic chemicals should be similarly required to provide warnings.
However, trusting that the exterminator or lawn care professional (sometimes Hazmat suit-wearing ones) will give you all necessary health warnings is naive at best. Besides pressuring chemical companies to come clean about the dangers they are exposing us to, we also need to arm ourselves with some common sense. That's the easiest way to avoid the "well, DUH" moment.
-- Statler, moderator
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
