Rally to Restore Sanity




DSCN2571

Originally uploaded by Thirdlayer

Folks from Bristol who usually are working very hard for Democrats and sane politicians locally, regionally, state, and federal took a break this past weekend to attend the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington, DC. In this photo are Carl, Richard, Catherine, Terry, Aviva, and Glen. Sarah is behind the camera, and Sherry and Barry are somewhere in the crowd.

We all had a great time, and after the event we agreed that we were more sane than before. It was great to see all of the signs and talk to folks from everywhere! We are hearing that we had 215,000 people in attendance, well above the expected (planned for) 60,000,

The show was great, and a lot of clips are available on YouTube, including the video of the final address by Jon Stewart.

Click the photograph to go to our album on Flickr, and to see more rally photos on Flickr.com, type “#sanityandorfear” in the search field at the top of the page.

Governments of large nations are large governments

Many will be basing their choice tomorrow on whether or not they want “big government.” It turns out that when you stop to list the differences between Republicans and Democrats, both of them seem to want big government. Then you flip a coin, and both of them want small government.

The Republicans disparage big government more frequently, but over the past decade of their control they have made government much larger. They expanded government intrusion into people’s lives by the Patriot Act, stacked the Supreme Court with corporate servants, broke unions and pushed back civil rights, and raised the prison population. They have enlarged government debt by useless foreign wars and and impoverished it by tax cuts for people who don’t need them. While doing these expansions, they have continuously cried that they want government to be smaller, and because of the volume of the shouting, some people still believe this. So the tag of “big government” won’t adhere to them in the press. This is because the press is essentially recording the shouting and transmitting it to the public. Republican expansion of government and the willingness of GOP leaders and legislators, corporate lobbyists, cronies, and campaign sponsors to grow wealthy at the expense of small investors and working people brought us to an economic brink that we never should have faced. They literally expanded government and enriched themselves economically using the tax dollars, the home equities, and the livelihoods of citizens.

The candidates they have in the arena now want to continue this expansion by taking away the successful programs that serve citizens — minimum wage, student aid, Social Security, workers’ rights, civil rights, Medicare, Medicaid — and anything else that can be turned into money for corporations by bleeding services and opportunity from ordinary citizens. A prime example is the gun lobby. They shout “freedom” and make you believe freedom is served when you can carry a firearm, open or hidden, anywhere you want it. What they actually do is sell a boatload of guns to you to protect your own freedom, which they are supposed to be doing for you with your tax money. Then you have to live with the knowledge that when your child goes to the Mall, every second person there is carrying a gun. So you imprison your children, but that is okay because you buy them more video games and televisions. This is not freedom. A society that goes armed is free to bear arms, but every other freedom is curtailed by fear of everyone bearing arms.

Democrats here at the start of their decade have reduced the deficit and stopped the hemorrhaging of jobs, prevented a depression, passed health care reform that is budget neutral if implemented as written, and included young adults between 18 and 26 in provisions already in place. They have curtailed military activities in Iraq, and given us a more realistic set of possibilities and goals in Afghanistan. They have passed regulatory reform to stop abuses in student loans and make that area of the economy self-sustaining and economical. Wall Street reform is serious, and they have a good start there. They have passed a consumer protection law that regulates credit cards. They have distributed tax cuts and stimulus money where it does the most good, into the workforce for doing work that needs to be done and helping people recover from the recession. None of these things are bad. But admittedly, they are big. So the accusation that they are “big government” sticks. They have done big things.

The candidates that they have in the field now are by and large supportive of continuing the recovery. Even Virginia’s Rick Boucher, who famously voted against his own party on HCR, but is now being attacked for working on and supporting the Cap and Trade bill, is supportive of moving forward instead of backward. He still doesn’t like HCR because it will probably raise rates on Medicare Advantage plans, which are held by most of the folks in his district. He still doesn’t like Cap and Trade, because it gives the EPA control of carbon emissions. However, on both issues, he sees ways of improving the current position and moving forward. He vows to support Social Security and Medicaid, student aid, and the minimum wage. He is able to support the coal industry and still work for clean energy, so neither of these camps is completely happy with him. They want him to choose up a side and start yelling. I want him to keep working, because he is doing a good job for his district. In another district, Tom Perriello is fighting for his political life because he voted with his party for HCR.

In Virginia, where I live, the state government has no problem with appearing regressive or oppressive, which they interpret as “being for small government.” They want to become smaller by privatizing roads — creating toll roads– and selling off state resources that bring in tax money to the highest private bidder, presumably the largest of which would be Walmart. They have been actively opposing anyone who supported any initiative of the Obama administration or the current Democratic legislature, and are in fact using our tax money to sue the federal government to prevent implementation of HCR. They are attacking Democratic candidates by pursuing state university professors whose research supports global warming, shouting about Cap and Trade, shouting about HCR, and pointing out that they are the same party as President Obama and Nancy Pelosi. No Republican candidate in Virginia has produced any alternative plan for doing the work of the government in serving and protecting citizens.

So it is a matter of where government should be big and where it should be small. Democrats have a history of making government large where it takes care of citizens and small where it infringes on individual choice and freedoms. Republicans have a history of making government small where it wrings out citizen support, protections, and resources and large where it enriches corporate interests.

All governments are “tax and spend,” and governments of large nations are large. The distinction between the political parties is to be found in what they do with the taxes and how they express their largeness. I am voting for Democrats because I believe a government should be large enough to bring home the bacon for the ordinary citizen in infrastructure, services, and opportunity. I know my government is large enough to insure either 1) that every one of my neighbors is fed and educated and has health care or 2) that a few people get extremely wealthy and the rest of us have plenty of prisons.

I stand with Democrats for Option One.

Morgan Griffith sends no promises

I received Morgan Griffith’s mailing today with all that he promises to do for us here in the Ninth District. At least that is what a political picture postcard should be about. However, since he is not promising to do anything for us, his postcard only told me what he opposes:

  1. Morgan Griffith opposes the Obama health care law and will repeal it. That means that your kids won’t stay on your policy until they are 26, insurance companies will drop people when they become ill, the new preventive services in Medicare will go away, we will be back in the doughnut hole, and nobody will question increased premiums. It also means another year or two of debate in which Republicans won’t mind lining their pockets more lobbyist money and favors.
  2. Morgan Griffith opposes abortion. He opposes health care for your sons and daughters through their young adult years, but he thinks that as a Congressman he can manage your daughter’s pregnancy better than she can manage it herself. He is wrong. Women love babies more than governments love babies. Making life better and giving young adults financial security and health resources so they can commit to families will reduce the abortion rate. Advances in health care and financial good times produced the Baby Boomers. Griffith and his party oppose Social Security, the safety net for children as well as the elderly, along with the minimum wage, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment insurance, all of which are foundational to having the security to start a family. If you are voting for life, you should consider that life springs from hopeful young people. Young people with no security and no hope don’t start families.

Our future in the Ninth is with Congressman Boucher. Vote for him on November 2nd, and don’t be swayed by the “no promises” of Morgan Griffith.

Campaigning for Rick Boucher at the headquarters


DSCN2543

Originally uploaded by Thirdlayer

Gearing up to start calling voters at Congressman Boucher’s campaign headquarters in Abingdon on Wednesday morning, encouraging all Democrats to be sure their vote is counted!

This is an important election, and we need to make sure that everyone gets to the polls. Check with your neighbors and help to get out the vote.

Ninth District candidates debate tonight

WJHL TV Channel 11 will be televising the debate live at 7:00 PM today, Tuesday, October 26th.

Campaigning for Congressman Boucher at Grand Court




at_GrandCourt1.jpg

Originally uploaded by Thirdlayer

Our committee received an invitation from Grand Court to speak about our candidate for Congress! Catherine and I enjoyed spending time with the folks there today. We understand that other candidates were also invited, but we had the floor all to ourselves to talk about Rick and what he has done for our region. Thanks to Grand Court for the invitation, and to the residents who attended!

Why a voter needs to think about the details

It is purely not enough to kick out the corrupt politicians and put in new people who promise to do better. You need to know what each person you are considering for office thinks about particular issues. For example, on the matter of a just way to collect taxes and pay for essential services for people, first you need to understand what taxes are and then you need to think about who should pay them and why.

Taxes can be one of three patterns:

  1. regressive (the lower income person pays a higher percentage);
  2. flat (everyone pays the same percentage);or
  3. progressive (the higher income person pays a higher percentage).

Sales tax is always regressive even when people pay the same rate, since you are taxed on what you spend, and the person who spends all of his/her money gets taxed on 100% of their money. A poor or middle class person spends all or most of their money, and if they use a credit card, they can actually pay sales tax on more than 100% of income. A wealthy person not only has unspent money not subject to sales tax, but is able to invest leftover money and earn interest, so taxes are offset by interest earnings. Most people with incomes over $200,000 a year, when their taxes are offset by the interest and dividends they earn on investments, currently pays no tax at all.

Here in Virginia, all taxes taken together — property, sales, and income tax — the poorest quartile of the population pays about 8.5% in state taxes, and the wealthiest quartile pays about 5.2%. This does not take into consideration the matter of interest and dividend earnings that are available to wealthy people to offset taxes.

At the national level, a progressive income tax has been in place in the U.S. for a long time, with the rich paying substantially more as a percentage. Tax shelters have served both the wealthy and middle income people, with middle income tax shelters largely limited to “before tax” retirement and medical savings accounts. A wide variety of tax shelters are available if you have enough money to use them, but most of us do not. The average wage in the U.S., even with rock stars and athletes calculated in, is somewhere around $40,000 to $45,000.

The Bush tax cuts, which all of the Republicans and Tea Party candidates want to continue and make permanent, were a windfall for wealthy people. The intent of the tax cuts was to enrich the wealthy so that they would be inspired to invest and hire more people to work for them. Instead, they have simply taken the money out of the market into their pockets, and it rests there doing nothing for the economy. Large financial magazines and newspapers have commented on this failure to invest as expected, and if you want to read about it, you can Google “tax cuts for the wealthy not invested in jobs” and “businesses sitting on large cash reserves.” There is nothing else that we can give the wealthy to inspire them to invest. In order to get the money back into the economy, we need to roll back the tax cuts for the very wealthy the way that the Democrats want to do.

It is fair for wealthy people to pay a larger percentage in taxes because they make more money, i.e., take more money out of the economy. This is a simplistic statement of why a progressive (rich pay a higher percentage) income tax is reasonable, and if you want to read further on the issue, check out “Why the rich should pay more” over on Thudfactor.com.

Understanding the information above, which anyone can verify easily with nothing more sophisticated than a Google search, indicates a clear choice for Democrats, who support a progressive income tax and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

It’s the semantics

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, R-VA, is fighting implementation of HCR in Virginia (using Virginia taxpayer money) based on two semantic points:

  1. The commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution allows Congress to regulate “activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.” Cuccinelli is arguing that under this clause, the U.S. cannot require individuals to purchase insurance or pay a fine for not doing so because not purchasing insurance is not “activity,” rather, he says, it is “inactivity,” non-participation in health care commerce.
  2. The Constitution gives Congress broad powers of taxation, and the fine for not purchasing health insurance would be collected when taxes are filed. Cuccinelli argues that the fine does not qualify as a “tax,” and is rather a “penalty” not covered by the powers of taxation.

Regarding the first argument, nobody chooses not to participate in health care. When the car stops spinning and flipping over and they pull you out of the wreck unconscious, you don’t have a card in your wallet that says, “I participate in health care. Please take me to the hospital.” There is no alternative to taking you to the hospital. If you put a card in your wallet that says “I chose not to participate in health care. Let me bleed to death here on the road,” the responders will still take you to the hospital. They are mandated to care for you, and they don’t have time to check your wallet. They are checking your vital signs and tying you to a rigid transport device in case your neck is broken. You will go to the hospital. If you have insurance, your insurance pays. If you don’t have insurance, everyone else pays for you in the form of higher premiums and/or tax-supported services. Everyone is in the health care market because no one can be turned away from an emergency room. Refusal or neglect to purchase insurance in this case is an active choice to let everyone else bear the cost when you need care.

Regarding the second argument, in Virginia we have a $500.00 uninsured motorist fee. If you go to register a car and you do not have insurance, you pay that fee. An uninsured motorist gets nothing for the $500.00. It is not a tax. It is a pure penalty for not purchasing insurance. The fee is put into a fund that is parceled out to insurance companies to reimburse them for their losses due to uninsured motorists interacting with their paying subscribers. So in Virginia, you pay a penalty for not purchasing the required insurance, you get no insurance for the fee, and the fee goes to subsidize the insurance that other residents have purchased.

In view of this Virginia requirement, it appears that Cuccinelli’s argument is political as well as semantic, since he has raised no objection to the Virginia statute. Virginia solicitor general Duncan Getchell told the court that by requiring individuals to purchase a commercial product, the U.S. government was exercising authority that is “unprecedented, unlimited, and unsupportable in any serious regime of delegated, enumerated powers.” I take issue with the “unprecedented,” because Virginia has a precedent. One well-documented requirement to meet a defined need does not qualify as “unlimited,” and since the need is defined and documented, it is apparently not “unsupportable.”

Renewable Energy Seminar Monday, Oct. 25th

Everyone is invited to come to this seminar at 5:30 to 7:00 p.m., in ISC-130 on the Virginia Highlands Community College campus. Claudia J. Banner, a principal engineer for American Electric Power’s New Generation Development division, will address the topic of renewable energy. Community members are invited to join students of VHCC’s Energy Technology, Electricity, and HVAC programs for this informative discussion. Ms. Banner holds a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from Virginia Tech and an MBA from Capital University.

Uninsured in Virginia

The Bristol Herald Courier reported today that Virginia U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson will rule by the end of the year on the constitutionality of the new health care reform law. The suit was brought by Virginia State Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, using Virginia taxpayer money. It alleges that the HCR provision requiring individuals to purchase health insurance is not a proper exercise of the government’s authority.

In the motor vehicle code in Virginia, there is a provision that corresponds to the HCR requirement to purchase. Virginia requires people who register a vehicle to have insurance or pay an uninsured motorist fee to help pay for damage done by people without insurance. This is the same motivation for the requirement to purchase that is included in HCR, since everyone at some time needs medical care, and forcing the cost of your care on other people while keeping your money in your pocket is just not nice.

If Virginia’s objection to requirement to purchase is upheld, then in order to have health care in the United States, we will have to fund it with tax dollars. The suit recognizes that the federal government has the power to levy taxes. It follows that if health care reform had come to us with a tax-payer funded public option or with single payer, apparently there would have been no objection from Virginia. However, those of us with good notes or sufficient memory of the last couple of years know that Republicans wanted people to purchase insurance from private insurers.

For reference, here from the Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles is information on the Uninsured Motorist Fee. Note that it does not raise revenue for the state to use. It sustains a fund that is paid out to insurers, but the citizen who pays the money has no protection. This fee serves the same purpose as the HCR requirement to purchase, but carries no benefit for citizen who pays:

Uninsured Motor Vehicle Fee — information for citizens:

The Virginia Uninsured Motor Vehicle (UMV) fee allows a motor vehicle owner to register an uninsured motor vehicle. At the time of registration, the motor vehicle owner must certify whether the vehicle is insured or uninsured.

If the vehicle is uninsured, the motor vehicle owner is required to pay to DMV a $500 uninsured motor vehicle fee in addition to normal registration fees. Payment of the $500 fee does not provide the motorist with any insurance coverage. If involved in an accident, the uninsured motorist remains personally liable. This fee is valid for twelve months but may be prorated for a shorter amount of time.

Motor vehicle owners who falsely certify that they have insurance and are found by DMV to be uninsured face stiff penalties. In addition to facing suspension of all driver and registration privileges, compliance includes payment of a $500 statutory fee, a $85 reinstatement fee and filing proof of insurance for three years. During the three-year period, insurance companies cooperate with DMV by providing notification if a policy is canceled. This requirement to maintain proof of insurance enables DMV to ensure that these motor vehicle owners maintain liability insurance on their registered vehicles.

This information is posted on the same website for insurers, and describes how the money is held and dispersed:

Uninsured Motor Vehicle Fee — information for insurers:

Every person registering an uninsured motor vehicle shall pay a fee of $500 at the time of registration. Payment of this fee allows a motor vehicle owner to operate an uninsured motor vehicle. Payment of this fee does not provide the motorist with any insurance coverage. If involved in an accident, the uninsured motorist remains personally liable. The fee is valid for twelve months but may be prorated for the unexpired portion of the registration period.

Uninsured Motorists Fund
As provided for by Motor Vehicle Code 46.2-710, all revenue collected by DMV as a result of registering an uninsured vehicle is paid into the state treasury and held in a special fund known as the Uninsured Motorists Fund. The purpose of the Fund is to reduce the cost of uninsured motorist insurance coverage. Moneys are distributed annually from the Fund among the insurers writing motor vehicle bodily injury and property damage liability insurance on vehicles registered in Virginia. Moneys are distributed in proportion that each insurer’s premium income for the basic uninsured motorists limits coverage bears to the total premium income for basic uninsured motorists coverage written in Virginia during the preceding year.