6th Circuit: Obamacare is Constitutional

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rules that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is Constitutional, affirming the ruling of the district court.

“We find that the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of legislative power by Congress under the Commerce Clause and therefore AFFIRM the decision of the district court.”
In the beginning of this legal saga, the Affordable Care Act won a series of victories, followed by a string of defeats. Now, this higher court ruled in it's favor. It is as clear as ever that we need to look to the highest court in the land to resolve the debate.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Fundraising Message from the President

Message from the president, donate now.

We're closing the books on the first fundraising quarter of the 2012 race at midnight tomorrow.

A lot of folks will be interpreting our numbers as a measure of this campaign's support.

They're not wrong, but they are wrong about why.

We measure our success not in dollars but in people -- in the number of everyday Americans who've chosen to give whatever they can afford because they know we've got more work to do.

I'm asking you to be one of them. Please donate $5 or more before midnight tonight:

https://donate.barackobama.com/Deadline

Thank you,

Barack

P.S. -- Your gift automatically enters you to join the Vice President and me for dinner. We'd love to meet you. Please donate here:

https://donate.barackobama.com/Dinner
Enhanced by Zemanta

Income Tax is Ineffective

At first glance, it seems fair: you pay proportional to what you make. However, this does not take expenses into account. If I live in New Jersey the living wage for a two adults and two child, according to http://www.livingwage.geog.psu.edu, is $33.00 an hour (or roughly $68,000 a year).
The living wage shown is the hourly rate that an individual must earn to support their family, if they are the sole provider and are working full-time (2080 hours per year).
If this family of four makes any less than that, they won't be able to afford one of the following categories:
  • Food
  • Child Care
  • Medical
  • Housing
  • Transportation
However, families of four making less 68,000 a year are still charged income tax. Every dollar of income tax makes this NJ family of four more unable to make ends meet. What's the point of taxing someone closer to poverty? Why should we tax people closer to needing government assistance? Why are we taking people on money that they don't have? I think I have a solution.

I think it is fair to say that someone making $68,000 in NJ isn't going to have any money in the bank because the cost of living is $68,000. After food, health care, housing, local and state taxes, etc they have nothing left to spare. Anyone making below this is in the red and this debt mounts every year, driving them closer to poverty. Therefore, it is my opinion that we should not tax the income of anyone making $68,000 or less in NJ. The living wage varies by city, so a person in Texas making $68,000 would still have to pay because the living wage is ~$52,000 a year. They should still be responsible to payroll, sales and property taxes because that is built into the living wage. Anything more to this is making anyone earning less than the living wage poorer and poorer every year. But what about the NJ wealthy?

Let's say a wealthy family of four lives in Hunterdon County, NJ. The cost of living is 72,000 a year. However, they make $500,000 a year. After subtracting the living wage (500,000-72,000) they have $422,000 in the bank. They should be taxed on that $422,000 that they have in the bank, not the $500,000 that they made. They have money left after paying expenses to pay the income tax. Their income tax won't put closer to poverty.

However, I don't think the families making below $68,000 should get off easy. For everyone making below the living wage, mandatory community service. This way, they contribute by making the country a better place for all to live and pay their debt to society without driving them into debt.

The whole idea behind this is taxing people who have money left to be taxed. We don't tax a business that lost money, why should we tax families going into debt. It's all about being fair and doing what you can.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sen. Obama Promised to Withdraw from Afghanistan?

Official presidential portrait of Barack Obama...Image via WikipediaI have seen statements by Obama detractors saying that Obama's pledge to reduce Afghanistan troop levels by 33,000 in the next year is a disingenuous move, only done to partly fulfill a campaign promise. (I think these people should put the joint down, Ron Paul hasn't gotten it legalized yet anyway!) Then Senator Obama actually promised to send MORE troops in Afghanistan, not take them out.
"Our troops have fought valiantly there, but Iraq has deprived them of the support they need — and deserve," Obama said. "As a result, parts of Afghanistan are falling into the hands of the Taliban, and a mix of terrorism, drugs and corruption threatens to overwhelm the country. As president, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counterterrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban."
Obama exceeded this promise with two troop surges. I don't know where these people are getting their information, but they better go elsewhere; Obama never promised to leave Afghanistan before this past Wednesday.


Enhanced by Zemanta

GOP: When the Going Gets Though, the Tough Give Up

Apparently the concept of 'compromise' is defined differently by Republican Congressmen. With GOP compromise you either comply with their demands or they walk. It is remniscent of Bush negotiations: "Either you are with us, or you're against us".

Enhanced by Zemanta

Obama: 33,000 Afghanistan Reduction

Official presidential portrait of Barack Obama...Image via WikipediaIn a speech earlier tonight, Obama announced that 10,000 troops will come home from Afghanistan by the end of this year and an additional 20,000 by next summer. By 2014, our job there will be done. Obama ends his speech by saying we need to focus our resources at home to "reclaim the American Dream".

Enhanced by Zemanta

UN: Gay Rights are Human Rights

United Nations Member States-1948Image via Wikipedia
Let's give a round of applause for the UN. Now the UN member nations need to follow suit. Only 6 states and 8 nations recognize same sex marriage. This is no different than the Civil Rights movement or the push for Women's

Sources: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/22/137342470/-un-recognizes-gay-rights-as-human-rights?ft=1&f=1001
Enhanced by Zemanta