Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

EPA slants analysis to favor Bush's agenda

Posted By: American Woman on 2005-12-03
In Reply to:


Report Accuses EPA of Slanting Analysis
Hill
Researchers Say Agency Fixed Pollution Study to Favor Bush's 'Clear
Skies'



By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday,
December 3, 2005; A08


The Bush administration skewed its analysis of pending legislation on air
pollution to favor its bill over two competing proposals, according to a new
report by the Congressional Research Service.


The Environmental Protection Agency's Oct. 27 analysis of its plan -- along
with those of Sens. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.) and James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.) --
exaggerated the costs and underestimated the benefits of imposing more stringent
pollution curbs, the independent, nonpartisan congressional researchers wrote in
a Nov. 23 report. The EPA issued its analysis -- which Carper had demanded this
spring, threatening to hold up the nomination of EPA Administrator Stephen L.
Johnson -- in part to revive its proposal, which is stalled in the Senate.


The administration's Clear Skies legislation aims to achieve a 70 percent cut
in emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide after 2018, while Carper's and
Jeffords's bills demand steeper and faster cuts and would also reduce emissions
of carbon dioxide, which are linked to global warming. The Bush plan would also
cut emissions of neurotoxic mercury by 70 percent, while Jeffords's bill reduces
them by 90 percent.


Although it represents a step toward understanding the impacts of legislative
options, EPA's analysis is not as useful as one could hope, the Research Service
report said. The result is an analysis that some will argue is no longer
sufficiently up-to-date to contribute substantially to congressional debate.


The congressional report, which was not commissioned by a lawmaker as is
customary, said the EPA analysis boosted its own proposal by overestimating the
cost of controlling mercury and playing down the economic benefits of reducing
premature deaths and illnesses linked to air pollution.


EPA estimated the administration's plan would cost coal-fired power plants as
much as $6 billion annually, compared with up to $10 billion in Carper's measure
and as much as $51 billion for Jeffords's. It calculated that Bush's proposal
would produce $143 billion a year in health benefits while Carper's would
generate $161 billion and Jeffords would yield $211 billion. Carper's measure
would achieve most of its reductions by 2013, while Jeffords's bill would enact
even more ambitious pollution cuts by 2010.


EPA spokeswoman Eryn Witcher said the agency based its cost estimates on
mercury controls by gathering comments from boilermaker workers, power companies
and emission control companies, whereas the Research Service used a single study
to reach its conclusions on mercury.


Clear Skies delivers dramatic health benefits across the nation without
raising energy costs and does it with certainty and simplicity, instead of
regulation and litigation, Witcher said. Because of our commitment to see this
become a reality, EPA went above and beyond to provide the most comprehensive
legislative analysis of air ever prepared by the agency, so it does a real
disservice to this discussion to have a report that largely ignores and
misinterprets our analysis.


But aides to Carper and Jeffords said they felt vindicated by the
congressional study.


The CRS report backs up a lot of what we initially said about EPA's latest
analysis, that it overstated the costs of controlling mercury and understated
the overall health benefits of Senator Carper's legislation, said Carper
spokesman Bill Ghent. The report clearly states that there's no reason to settle
for the president's Clear Skies plan because the legislation doesn't clean the
air much better than current law.


© 2005 The Washington Post
Company



Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Bush had a personal agenda for this invasion.
Al queada is in 80 different countries, mostly Pakistan.

No, this is about the children. Because if we cannot get this country straightened out now, it could send the entire globe into a recession since it is a dollar based economy world wide for the most part. Imagine: Tube socks at Wal-Mart costing 55.00 rather than 5.99. Imagine, a dollar having the value of a nickel.
Imagine empty store shelves. This is what is at stake.

You need to read more books from both sides. Tune into all stations. I force myself to listen to Bill O'really and Rush ::gags:: when major events take place just to see what their perception of events are.

There really is two Americas and you and I, we live in the same one. McCain doesn't consider a person rich unless they have 5 million dollars - doesn't that say something?

did you watch the 9-11 coverage on national geo? Did you see the errors made prior to the attacks and during the attacks? It was due to an unsophisticated system which the military used. Two fighter jets were out over the Atlantic ocean while the 2nd jet flew into the 2nd tower. "We were confused" "fog of war" how many lives that would have saved.

No, militarily the U.S. is weak and just about every general has said this that wasn't hand picked by Bush as a puppet. And have you heard: Iraq has a 63 billion dollar surplus but is not paying back the U.S. because "they destroyed the country." What????

Beating a dead horse. I can hear you now.

There are even wealthy democrats who would like to see McCain win - for the tax cuts. I am very suspicious the delegates who voted for Obama may have considered that. Even Keith Obermann, who actually read Obama's speech minutes before he hit the stage, ruining the ability for the audience to experience a thoughtful speech. He read it off like it was a lunch menu. And he is supposed to be a liberal democrat.

When the rich are against the poor, a country ends up corrupt. And that is what McCain is representing, the wealthy class.

Republicans = the rich and the fools.
What exactly was President Bush's agenda for locking them up?

Somebody has to pay for 9/11.  Somebody has to pay for the USS Cole.  The right people are locked up.  Excuse me for not crying about their civil rights or worrying about how they are interrogated.  National security is why President Bush locked those terrorists up, national security and justice. 


And I do have a grip -- a firm grip on reality.  I don't live in Obama-land.


Okay, but you didn't answer the question... What was Bush's agenda?
?
Poll MSNBC 87% in favor of impeachment for Bush.sm

Really popular guy - 283,513 polled 87% said yes.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/


All the people you mention have slants
the fact most journalists do. Just because you don't like Drudge's slant....which I don't get your point because Drudge mostly just posts headlines. He does have a radio show, but on his website he posts mostly headlines...
analysis is exactly what you need
nm
Response to your analysis...sm
First, let's clear away everything you said about Obama's motives, because they are completely irrelevant. A man can act from the purest of motives and the best of intentions, and yet be entirely wrong.

So, to start us off let's just concede that Obama is a patriot, has the best interests of the country at heart and has no ulterior motives or personal interests driving his agenda.

Then, let's also set aside the desirability at least most of the agenda that Obama is promoting, because that, too, is irrelevant to our disagreement with him. At bottom, "we the people" of both/all parties want much the same things. No one would argue, or is arguing, that good schools for our kids, job security with a decent wage, equal opportunity for everyone, access to affordable healthcare, safe streets and national security.

We do have some problems with parts of Obama's agenda. The "science" of global warming, for instance, is simply abominably bad, and many scientists have said so. It has become a business, starting with AL Gore and spreading outward to the greedy hands that grasp for government money allocataed to "combat" this Don Quixote windmill. It is at least strongly possible that the earth is simply going through a cyclical climate change that has existed since the earth was formed - and some of us are saying that before we undertake the enormously expensive and economically damaging measures that the "sky-is-falling folks" are demanding, let's get the science right first and stop using models that start out by assuming the truth of global warming in order to prove global warming. The science has been hijacked by greed for government money.

We do have problems with Obama's policy of appeasement, and so far we have already had three very disturbing confirmations that appeasement is a very bad idea (Russia, Iran, and North Korea). It hasn't been pleasant watching Obama get slapped around in front of the world by Putin, the Ayatollah in Iran and Kim Jong Il.

But let's get closer to home. I said that people of all parties want much the same things. The questions that divide us are not what we should do, but how these things can best be achieved, at what cost, and how rapidly.

As to how these things can best be achieved, Obama believes that government should do them. He proposes to expand government more than Roosevelt did during the New Deal, and extend government's reach into every nook and cranny of American society. Under his budget, the government will account for 25% of the American economy - spending 1 in every 4 dollars. This alone should both stagger and worry everyone, because every government dollar must first be taken away from us (the government makes no money of its own), because the government is infamous for waste and corruption that will siphon dollars off as they do by the $billions with Medicare/Medicaid, and because government dollars always have very burdensome strings attached.

A good question to ask yourself is: Name 5 things that government does well (meaning, effectively and efficiently). You'll have a tough time filling out your list, if you're honest with yourself. Think about education, government-funded healthcare like Medicare/Medicaid, etc. and try to convince yourself that government is doing them well.

Time and again, it has been proven that private enterprise does a much better job of delivering desirable goods (an economic term for both "things" and "services") than government does. Rather than expanding an inept institution (government) to provide these goods, we should be encouraging the private sector to do so. The private sector is required to pay attention to costs, whereas the government is not (anyone can easily find millions of examples of that!).

Then, there is the second item of disagreement - "at what cost". This is related to the third item - "how rapidly". As desirable as many of the items on Obama's agenda might be, I have a lot of items on my personal agenda that are pretty desirable but that I simply cannot afford, or cannot afford RIGHT NOW. We, the people, are in exactly the same position. We have a deep recession that must be our first priority and perhaps, at this moment, our ONLY priority. In fact, so much money is being spent on this agenda item that it may well be the only thing we will be able to afford for quite some time to come, because the bill for all this stimulus spending has yet to come due. Make no mistake, though - we will pay, and pay, and pay, and pay.

When you look at the stimulus package, for instance, there is an incredible number of items that are "compartmentalized" - meaning that the states will get the dollars ONLY if they use them to do certain things that are on Obama's social agenda. And, a large number of these things will generate few if any jobs. The CBO's own numbers confirm that job creation is likely to be only half of what you're hearing from the White House, and unlike the White House, the CBO can explain where they get their numbers.

If we press forward with Obama's programs, the forward deficit (not one that Obama inherited from Bush!) will be nearly $10 trillion. This number is so staggering that governments around the world are beginning to wonder if Washington has lost its mind, and to worry that Washington will be the fountainhead of global superinflation.

It's time to set aside any questions of whether you like Obama or not...or whether you like his agenda or not. IT DOESN'T MATTER whether you like him or his agenda or not. The simple fact is, WE CANNOT AFFORD IT. We seem to think that the government doesn't need to recognize its limits and live within its means, just like families must do. The prospect of a $10 trillion deficit should strike more fear into your heart than terrorists or Russian missiles. It will literally enslave the American taxpayer, while at the same time increasing the price of everything you buy. Some goods will no longer be available at all to the "middle class" because they will become luxury items. Don't just whistle past the graveyard - think!

No society is ever perfect. A hundred years from now, we will still be looking around and seeing things that need to be done, or things that could be improved, or things that need to be eliminated, or things that need to be done differently. And, in that year of 2109, we will still have to say "There are some things on this list that we can afford, and some things we can't afford." We will still have to say "There are some things on this list that government should do, and some things that the private sector should do". It's the ability to make those distinctions that marks the difference between people who are driven by "party politics" and agendas, and those who realize that there are very real constraints that trump any agenda. They are the constraints of the limitations of government, the budget and the longer-term unintended consequences of rushing headlong to achieve any agenda, no matter how desirable it might be.


Very well put Tired MT. Your analysis is spot on. sm
I have been reading the posts for quite a while and I have to agree with you. If you don't agree with political viewpoints on this board, you are jumped on with both feet. I have been on the receiving end of it alos. I figure it this way, I must have really struck a nerve to get people so incensed that they go ballistic. I do have to say that Sam can more than hold her own and I love reading what she has to say. Kudos to Sam for having the courage of her convictions and kudos to you for putting a finger on the problem.
Wow! Thanks! According to your analysis there is no need to hold an election!
X
I totally agree with your analysis.
The release would do more harm than good.

The only purpose to release these pictures can be to persecute the former administration. We all and they all know that they are guilty.

Also, right, NOW is not the time to go after them.
I respect your analysis about how the people in the
Middle East are going to react to the exposure of the torture pictures. But it is a risky thing. The Muslim people's, the everyday people that is, reaction was also standing in awe to the 9/11 catastrophy and condemning it, as they knew it will backfire on them, the people.

But, I guess, their reaction seeing the torture picture, would not be favorable to us, in no way. The pictures will be met with horror, not respect by the Muslim people and the people all over the world. It is cruel torture, and who wants to see humans suffer in such way?
They will ask, 'What is the logic and reason to post those pictures?' They most probably will misunderstand it and maybe judge it as provocation. No good can come out of this. And I do not even dare to think of the reaction of the extremists. Why should a country expose its humiliating mistakes so openly to the world?

Let's not exaggerate trying to repair America's image to the world and the Arab world, I think O is on the right path.
this is not hateful, it is just an analysis and the truth...nm
I cannot believe the B* that is posted by the Rep on the Politics Board, especially the last 2 days, this has gone INSANE !
I agree with your analysis. It's gonna be ugly, especially if
Hezbullah wins in Lebanon.
Do you agree with this analysis of Jewish abortion stance? sm
Jewish beliefs and practice not neatly match either the "pro-life" nor the "pro-choice" points of view. The general principles of modern-day Judaism are that:

The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life. It gains "full human status at birth only." 2

Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus.

Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health.

With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women.

"...each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law." 5


Historical Christianity has considered "ensoulment," the point at which the soul enters the body) as the time when abortions should normally be prohibited. Belief about the timing of this event has varied from the instant of fertilization of the ovum, to 90 days after conception, or later. There has been no consensus among historical Jewish sources about when ensoulment happens. It is regarded as "one of the 'secrets of God' that will be revealed only when the Messiah comes."

Wow, and you can ascertain all that from 4 weeks in office? Amazingly rapid political analysis!.....
nm
They have the same agenda. The only thing different sm
about Democrats and Republicans are the issues, and the issues are what divide us. The issues cause arguments, which distract us - the old divide and conquer tactic better known as the false left right paradigm. The Bush and Clinton families are quite friendly, even vacation together.
I merely posted who they are and what their agenda is...
that is not attacking the messenger. That is presenting the other side. Why do you object to presenting the other side?
Behind the Obama Agenda....sm




http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/546-behind-the-obama-agenda
a bold agenda

and worthwhile getting started but I believe you have to be dead 100 days or 100 years to get a national holiday. Something about historic prespective or some such.


 


Radical Agenda...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/25/boxer-seeks-ratify-treaty-erode-rights/


 


 


Since you seem to know, just what is the "conservative agenda", please? sm
..and kindly provide references from the conservative sources themselves, not from liberal sources that are a little too prone to misinterpretations and mischaracterizations.

Thank you. I apologize in advance if this request imposes a burden on you to get your facts straight, but you'll be better informed for having made the effort.
I do not understand what the agenda
is when scientists around the world have already declared their findings do not support gore's. We are not doing anything to effect melting of ice caps on jupiter. The sun has just entered its new 11 year sun spot cycle with the peak about halfway through and as a ham operator I know what this does to communications. why is this myth persisting. what a bunch of youknowwhat. take the old nursery rhyme of "black sheep, black sheep have you any wool" and change it to black sheep, black sheep, have you any bull. yes sir, yes sir, 3 bags full". and before anyone even goes there, I have heard that in my mind for years and it has nothing to do with O. I do have a question for someone: On my phone bill since I came up to stay with Mother, I am being charged $5 a month for NOT using long distance. This is now taxed city, state and federal. Does this seem legal?
I'd appreciate it if you would leave my daughter out of your agenda.

I mentioned nothing of her political opinions or what she "thinks." I merely said I baby-sit for her occasionally and use her computer.  for you to try to drag her into your accusations is typical of what I have seen happen on the other board.  It's inflammatory and untrue, but it's how you people seem to create your "facts." I can assure you that my daughter has her own political opinions, and she and I don't always agree, unlike you, but we at least respect each other's right to their opinion and often have respectable, interesting, informative debates with each other.  She was taught respect and learned it very well. You can't hold a candle to the intelligent, respectful young lady that she is, so don't even try because you're way out of your league. As far as going back to the conservative board, thanks, but no thanks. I've already explained my reasons for not going back there any more. People are much more respectful of differing opinions on this board.


My post to gt was simply to tell her that I understand what it's like to be accused of all sorts of things simply because you post on a board.  It happened to me on the conservative board on my first (and last) visit there, which is why I won't return.


Do I think some of the things gt said were over the top?  I sure do.  Do I understand why she said them?  My guess is that she was trying to communicate with you in the only way you seem to understand, since civil attempts don't seem to work with some of you people.  I think I can "understand" her motives, just like some of you "understand" why Eric Rudolph murdered innocent people. And between the two, I'd much rather try to "understand" gt than "Eric" (as he appears to be affectionately referred to elsewhere on this board).


Americans tired of GOP agenda.
From pensitoreview.com where full story can be read:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sen. Nelson: Americans Are Fed Up with GOP
Posted October 5th, 2005 at 10:06 am by Jon

Boston.com:

The nation has become fed up with Republican leadership and the United States can still free itself of foreign oil in 10 years if it focuses on alternative fuel like ethanol, Sen. Bill Nelson said Tuesday.

In a wide ranging interview with reporters, Nelson, D-Fla., cited Republicans’ intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, the skyrocketing federal budget deficits and the war in Iraq as reasons why public opinion is turning against the GOP.

“It started with Terri Schiavo,” Nelson said. “I think what you’re seeing is a reaction — that people are saying I have enough of this intolerance and trying to cram their agenda down the people’s throats. People are getting tired of that.

He also points to the White House not responding quickly enough when Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans and Mississippi and failing to work with oil companies to reign in rising gas prices.

“I can’t tell you how many Republicans have come up to me and said ‘I am off the reservation because of the fiscal policies of this administration, spending so much money like a drunken sailor,’” Nelson said. “All of these things are coming home to roost.”
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Better late than never, I guess - now all we have to do is get rid of those hackable electronic voting machines and we can do something constructive about it.
No, it's not an evil agenda...I agree...sm
And in a perfect world America would be 100% Christian and we all would believe and think the same way, but we don't. Along with bringing their faith, our leaders have to bring the wisdom on how to be a leader for 100% of the people, and that includes the 49% that didn't vote for him.

Go to Obama's web site to see his agenda. sm
There you will find very detailed solutions that he lays out for America.  Of course experience is a good thing, but the trouble is the longer a person is embedded in the political establishment the more entrenched they become in "business as usual." Business as usual has netted little in this country, especially regarding the middle class.  I can't say Obama is the magic bullet here, after all he too is a politician, but a little less entrenched, and maybe it's worth a shot to see if someone with a little less "insider experience" could start to turn the country in a different and better, direction.  What do we have to lose?
And LOUDLY indicative of O's agenda! nm
nm
Freedom agenda in the Middle East?

Did Bush campaign promising a freedom agenda in the Middle East?  I must have missed that during the debates.  In fact, he specifically said he was against nation building when he debated Gore, although in all fairness, he didn't say he was against nation wrecking.


I guess he doesn't understand that the decider created more suiciders than he got rid of.


I can't wait to see how his base spins the long awaited truth from Bush's own lips that there were no WMDs and that Iraq had no ties to 9/11.


May God help us all.


Ending the Hidden Agenda Behind Tax Cuts

by: Joe Brewer, t r u t h o u t | Perspective


photo
The way that taxation is viewed by the public has a lot to do with the way politicians frame the debate. (Artwork: inventions-guide.com)



    Something as simple as a metaphor can mean the difference between shared prosperity and widespread suffering.

    It's time to tell the truth about tax cuts. This phrase dominates political discourse and is coughed out every time a conservative public figure opens his mouth. It is treated like the basis of sound reasoning, yet no one points out what should be obvious - that "tax relief" and "tax cuts" are just code words for destroying the capacity of government to serve the public.

    We've heard over and over again that the source of society's problems is the government. The solution that follows is to "trim the fat," "cut out the waste," "shrink the government" and provide "relief" to millions of citizens who suffer the burden of exploitation by Washington elites. This story flies in the face of the facts, yet it makes sense to a significant portion of the US population. How can this be?

    The answer has to do with how we make sense of things in the world. Our experiences shape what seems legitimate by reinforcing (or undermining) our ideas about the way things work. So, for example, a progressive politician may speak honestly and forcefully about the positive role of government in our lives. But this will fall on deaf ears if our typical experience is at odds with such claims. This observation demonstrates a key element of what George Lakoff and I have dubbed the Cognitive Criterion for Public Support:

    An effective policy must be popular if it is to stand the test of time and it must be popular for the right reasons, namely because it promotes the right long-term values in the minds of citizens, reinforced through the lived experience.

    The reason many people accept conservative claims about taxation and government is that they hold up for many common experiences, especially when conservatives are in control of the government. Conservative officials enact policies that make life worse for people while claiming that things will get better. Then they draw upon these negative experiences to advance their agenda. No Child Left Behind is an excellent example. The strategy works like this (a more detailed analysis can be found here):

1. Declare that the agenda is to "improve" public education.


2. Pass legislation that cripples public schools.

3. Cry out for "reform" when people see how bad our schools are doing.

4. Get rid of public schools and replace them with private schools, especially schools that teach conservative ideology (e.g. elite charter schools, religious schools, etc.).


    This strategy demonstrates how *cognitive policy* works. Emphasis is given to how people understand what is happening. The goal is to ensure that our experiences are interpreted through a conservative lens. It is not literally the case that taxation is a burden (a provocative metaphor), but rather that our common sense is influenced by a combination of our experiences in the world and the interpretive filters that give them meaning. (A key feature of how the political mind works, as I discuss in The Great Political Blind Spot.)

    Back to the hidden agenda behind tax cuts; we can apply this insight to see that conservatives *want* people to have negative experiences with government. Why? Because it supports decades of propaganda - and an underlying belief that stems from their worldview - that government is the problem. In the early 1970's, conservative elites started investing heavily in the creation of idea factories to spread their views far and wide so that they eventually became the new common sense of our culture. They had to work tirelessly for years to change the underlying values of American citizens because our long history has been devoted to advancing our most cherished values, which happen to be progressive. But, as we can see by the pervasiveness of their ideas today, this effort has been catastrophically successful.

    Now is the time to nip their bankrupt idea about taxation in the bud. The way to do it is simple. Take their reasoning to its logical conclusion and see what happens if it is applied to the real world. We can test the conservative belief about taxation against our own and decide what's best by looking at the outcomes.

    First, we'll need to be very clear about just what conservatives and progressives mean by taxation. Then we can apply these understandings to the world to see their consequences. (The insights that follow come from linguistic analysis of cognitive "frames" that shape political thought.)

    Taxation as Conservatives Understand It

    I've already alluded to an interesting metaphor that helps make sense of conservative thought about taxes, which I'll call Taxes Are a Burden to make it explicit. The understanding of taxation that follows from this metaphor can be seen in this story:

    Hard-working Americans are in need of some tax relief. Years of mismanagement by tax-and-spend liberals have taken money out of the hands of working people and put it into bloated government programs that serve special interests. We need to cut taxes, return fiscal responsibility to government, and put money back in the hands of taxpayers who know best how to spend it.

    This perspective is grounded in two beliefs: (1) The world is comprised of individuals; and (2) People are inherently bad and must learn right from wrong through self-discipline. I like to call this the "Me First" perspective because it assumes that people must help themselves before thinking about others. It can be summarized with the declaration, "You're on your own!" The Me First perspective assumes that any assistance from the community would be "coddling" or "spoiling" us. This claim is asserted as truth in the conservative worldview.

    Taxation as Progressives Understand It

    Progressives have a different understanding of taxation that can be expressed through a variety of metaphors: Taxes Are an Investment, Taxes Are Membership Dues, Taxes Are Pathways to Opportunity, Taxes Are Infrastructure and Taxes Are a Duty. (Read more about progressive taxation in "Progressive Taxation: Some Hidden Truths") Reasoning that emerges with these metaphors can be seen in this progressive story:

    Our great nation was founded on a promise of protection and opportunity. Through our shared wealth, pooled together by taxation with representation, we have invested in the public infrastructure that makes possible the creation of new wealth. We have a sacred trust to keep this promise alive throughout our lifetimes, expand it as we are able, and pass it along to our children.

    This perspective is grounded in the beliefs that (1) Individuals are influenced significantly by our communities; and (2) People are inherently good and benefit from cooperation with others. I like to call this the "People First" perspective because it assumes that people must help each other in order to enhance their ability to help themselves. It can be summarized with the declaration, "We're all in this together!" The People First perspective assumes that we are greater than the sum of our parts and that new opportunities emerge when we make wise investments with the common wealth we share.

    Truth and Consequences

    Now that we have a clear sense of what taxation means to conservatives and progressives, we can see what happens if these different ideas are used as governing principles for shaping society. This analysis accomplishes two purposes. First, it reveals key truths about taxation that complicate arguments made by conservatives, truths that don't get talked about nearly enough. And second, it exposes a covert agenda that deceptively exploits real concerns of people to advance an otherwise unpopular agenda.

    What happens if the Me First perspective is applied to taxation? Just look to the world we find ourselves in today. A problem defined as "too much spending" leads to budget cuts. This results in a diminished capacity to provide vital services. Public goods like education, civil and criminal courts, road maintenance and fundamental scientific research are too costly for individuals - or even multinational corporations - to afford. So these services are cut and people lose their jobs. Thousands of teachers no longer cultivating young minds. Countless construction workers laid off when city and state governments halt infrastructure projects. Graduates with advanced degrees unable to find work because public agencies are "tightening their belts" and cutting back on grants to academia, nonprofits and the private sector.

    Beyond the direct human suffering of disrupted lives, there is substantial reduction in government programs that protect the public against harm. The FDA cannot staff enough inspectors to keep toxic peanuts out of the food supply. The EPA lacks capacity to keep drinking water clean in cities and towns across the country. The SEC is unable to keep a watchful eye on runaway speculation and our economy spins wildly out of control. Bridges crumble and levies break because funds are in short supply.

    The consequence of conservative ideology is a self-fulfilling prophecy. People are forced to be "on their own" with no protection against serious threats and no assistance to get them beyond their current means. When disasters strike, there is widespread suffering and death because the tapestry of society - our precious safety net - has withered and decayed. Think I'm exaggerating? I'll just say one word - Katrina.

    And despite their claims to the contrary, conservative leaders want this to happen.

    Contrast this with the People First perspective. Again, we can let experience be our guide. A decade of rampant deregulation, perpetrated by a conservative mindset about the relationship between government and the economy, led to the great stock market crash of 1929. A visionary progressive leader, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, stepped in and vastly expanded a wide variety of public programs. The flood of revenues accompanying this expansion was enough to put millions of unemployed back to work. New programs that embody the spirit of progress emerged in the decades that followed. Social Security, the GI Bill, Medicare and the FDIC are a few examples of the legacy this pooling of resources delivered to the American people.

    Along with this massive investment in societal infrastructure, Americans experienced tremendous growth of shared prosperity. For the first time in our history, an entire generation of children from working-class families moved up the economic ladder with college degrees in hand. Home ownership skyrocketed. Literacy rates went through the roof and new skills emerged to expand the capacity of markets. And two generations of people experienced the benefits of cooperation in their daily lives, codifying the ethic that we're all in it together as a bedrock of sound reason.

    I can attest to this from personal experience. Both of my parents came from working-class families. I was the first to get a college degree. Federal and state scholarships delivered me from the rural farm to the hallowed halls. And now society gets to benefit from the fruits of my labor as I work to transform our political system for the betterment of society. The cognitive policy of the People First perspective is a foundation of my identity in the world.

    The Hidden Agenda Exposed

    The progress of our nation is being held hostage by a malicious metaphor. Treating taxation as nothing more than a burden is tantamount to declaring that citizenship is nothing more than getting all you can for yourself … everyone else be damned. Conservative elites have undermined the responsibilities we have to one another to advance their agenda. They are fully committed to crafting the world in their image, as we've seen all too clearly these last eight years and throughout the current debate about economic recovery under the Obama administration.

    I say enough is enough. Let's call this tactic out for what it is. People are hurting in every corner of the land and they're looking for help where they haven't dared to look for quite some time - in the service of our representatives in the federal government. Conservatives will try to convince us that our hardships are caused by excessive government. The truth is that we are suffering under excessive conservative ideology of governance, which is a very different beast. They continue to claim that we can't get ahead because we're overtaxed. This claim is absurd!

    Not a single home foreclosure throughout this crisis has been caused by excessive taxation. The misfortune of illness in a dysfunctional health system has burdened people with horrendous debt. Where did this problem come from? Profit-driven health care created under the Nixon administration.

    Banks haven't failed catastrophically through oversized personal W-2 forms. Radical deregulation is the culprit. Who deregulated the market? Conservative ideologues from both political parties. (This is what the word "centrist" really means - conservatives who've infiltrated the Democratic Party.)

    Companies haven't been driven to huge layoffs because their tax burden is too high. They are victims of an unraveling market. What undermined the integrity of the global economy? An extremist philosophy of governance that is blind to the role of the regulatory frameworks that give stabilizing structure to our markets.

    What can we do to stop the conservative agenda? Call it out for what it is. When someone says, "People need tax relief," respond by letting them know that "We really need to invest in one another." Make it clear what the consequences of tax cuts really are - the destruction of our mechanisms for protecting and empowering one another. And let's stop taking their language for granted just because everyone is doing it. That logic didn't make much sense in middle school. It's all the more dangerous to follow as adults. Challenge the conservative meaning of taxation directly. Declare that we are decidedly NOT on our own. Point to the benefits we've taken for granted too long, things like education and schools and roads and courts.

    We mustn't stop with a critique of their ideas either. We need to fervently argue for our own. Together we are greater than the sum of our parts. A prosperous community is a place where neighbors pool their efforts for the greater good. Taxes provide resources for investments larger than anything we could build on our own. And these benefits create a space for new ideas to take hold and expand our wealth.

    Ideas matter. Words are important. We cannot afford to let a radical minority set the tone of public debate any longer. The time is ripe for moving beyond the era of misguided individualism. Let's take the momentum we've built in the last few years and place the United States back on a course that resonates with our deeply held values - caring for one another, expanding freedoms to the marginalized, and recognizing that our shared prosperity is at the core of our success as a nation.


They aren't pushing a "gay agenda"...(sm)
They're pushing TOLERANCE.....something you could obviously use a lessen in.
Well at least the blame agenda is still alive in the liberal movement. sm
Nice to see some things never change. 
What I find wrong is that he's pushing his own ego-driven agenda
regardless of what anyone thinks. I think this is called FALSE reassurance.
Do yourself a favor
don't ever get a job as a seer...because you're totally off base with your analogy.
All in favor, say "I"
Give it a rest. We got more important fish to fry.
I guess it is the idea that in the spirit of Christmas the NRA is pushing their agenda...sm
Is nothing sacred? And that goes beyond politics.

Santa with a gun. Right over baby Jesus. Insinuating that Muslims want to blow up Christianity. All in the name of being able to bear arms.

I can't name ONE act of terrorism in American history in the last 100 years that a citizen bearing arms would have saved ONE person from a terrorist.

A gun wouldn't have helped anyone in the trade center, can't take them on a plane so wouldn't have saved any of the passengers, Oklahoma bombing, nope a gunn wouldn't have helped those victims. Just another scare tactic, exploiting 9/11 to push their agenda that was here before waaaayyy before the fact.


I'm just more likely to get upset when it's not in my favor :)...sm
If it's not an honest mistake, it's shameful either way.
Who all is in favor of a polygraph?

I personally think that all candidates should be subjected to a polygraph.  This way we won't have to dig through all the BS all the politicians give us and we know whether they are lying or not.  LOL!  Kind of like our own political BS detector.



Is anyone actually in favor of the bail out?

I personally think that we should just let the banks fail and not save their greedy banker butts.  It seems like that's the way a lot of other people feel too.  I haven't heard one person say let's save their greedy banker butts.  However, I'm pretty sure that congress will bail them out.  If I could vote on this, I would definitely say no, no matter what consequence to myself (drop in stock, retirement and possibly the value of my home, no loan for college next semester). 


Are there any average Americans out there that are for this?


I'm in favor of choice
So, yes, I want the deck stacked on my side, lol! If you aren't in favor of an abortion, then please don't have one. You can make that choice all by yourself.
Do us all a favor. Go look up the definitions of tax cut
The only way anybody gets money back more than what they pay in is if they earn very low wages and have many children. The income bracket they are in refunds all revenues back to them that they paid in. In addition, they get a tax CREDIT only if they qualify for earned income tax credit or child tax credit. For example, lowest bracket tops out at $7825. Their tax rate is 10%. Whatever they have paid in over $782.50, they get back and ONLY what they have paid over that amount, because this is based on the tax rate. They get more back only if they have qualified for EIC or CTC.

It you get a tax rate cut, you cannot benefit from it if you do not earn wages. These guys also will not get any additional refundable tax CREDIT as that is paid against tax liabilty. If you take issue with this, show me how I am wrong here.
Well, I'm not in favor of bailing out
people who bit off more mortgage than they can chew.  Assuming they could read, they should have read the fine print.  If they agreed to buy a house for a price, then they owe that amount of money plus interest.  That's the way it's always been.  I think the governmennt is focusing on these "bad loans" to take the spotlight off the real people...those who bought a house they could afford, have made their payments and now many are faced with losing their homes because of losing their jobs.  Those are the ones who get my sympathy.
So you're in favor of this?
You actually think that this bloated thing they're calling a stimulus plan ought to be passed in the House version? Do you really believe that this is the time and place to push through every piece of pork and catering to special interest groups and call it stimulus? Why not just call it the liberal Democrat wish list and let it go as that? This not the time to cater to special interests when our country is sinking economically. I had every hope that Obama would come up with a legitimate stimulus plan, but this is a tragic joke.
He does favor sex education for kindergartners...
ABC News' Teddy Davis and Lindsey Ellerson Report: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is "age-appropriate," is "the right thing to do."
My question is, what part of sex education is age-appropriate for a 5-year-old? Can't we just let them be kids? Sigh.

And if the lipstick pig thing is a joke...it is in poor taste. In all honesty, I don't believe he actually meant to compare Sarah Palin to a pig. However, it was a poor choice of words. And if you look at the crowd he was talking to, THEY thought he was talking about Sarah Palin. That is why they stood up and had a big laugh over it.

In politics, sadly, perception is everything...and most people perceive he was taking a low blow shot at Palin.
I would favor a federal sales tax if

there were no exemptions whatsoever.  If, say you earned a dollar, you owed a dime.  No exceptions regarding where the money comes from.  Tax welfare benefits too.  Social Security is already taxed for some recipients.  Those of us who receive Social Security and have enough income to pay taxes on 85% (maximum) of it ALL had the opportunity for a better life.  Some took advantage of that and some didn't.  Young people today have little hope of receiving Social Security and they also have little hope of being able to live while saving for their future.


In my usual long-winded way, t hat's what I think.


I am not in favor of a federal sales tax....
as much as I am in favor of a flat percentage income tax. For the sake of argument...let's say 10%. No deductions, no nothing. Flat 10%. I don't care if you make a dollar or 10 million dollars. Everyone pays the same amount. Cut back the IRS because if you pay a flat tax you don't need them and the incessant forms and reams of laws. Cutting back on the IRS would save millions in and of itself. Then every American pays the same tax. THAT is equality. Everyone gets the same shake. You make less, you pay less. You make more, you pay more. They should also abolish the death tax. IF the feds have already taxed all your money, they should not tax it AGAIN just because you die. That is unfair to the heirs you worked to provide for. Just my opinion.
DO OUR COUNTRY A FAVOR, show the BC!!!

A ? for those in favor of national healthcare
What is your rationale for wanting government in charge of your healthcare? You have to know that if this happens, healthcare in this country IS going to be rationed, the same as it's been rationed in Great Britain, Sweden, and Canada. There will be long waits for procedures that we now take for granted being done in a very short time. I know Obama promised the same healthcare as he now has in the senate...do you believe him?
Doesn't look like ALL the people are in favor of it. sm
Not even all Dems support it and looks like their support is dropping as well.


The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 37% favor the legislation, 43% are opposed, and 20% are not sure.

Two weeks ago, 45% supported the plan. Last week, 42% supported it.

Opposition has grown from 34% two weeks ago to 39% last week and 43% today.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Democrats still support the plan. That figure is down from 74% a week ago. Just 13% of Republicans and 27% of those not affiliated with either major party agree.

Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans oppose the plan along with 50% of unaffiliated voters and 16% of Democrats.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_stimulus_package/support_for_stimulus_package_falls_to_37
Total climbing in favor of impeachment sm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/
The bully thing would argue in favor of
nm
Bottom line...are you in favor of infanticide? nm
nm