Federal income tax? Not for everyone

By Jennifer J. Foster

Check this out, from CNNMoney.com:

In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Some in that group will even get additional money from the government because they qualify for refundable tax breaks.

The ranks of those whose major federal tax burdens net out at zero—or less—is on the rise. The center’s original 2009 estimate was 38%. That was before enactment in February of the $787 billion economic recovery package, which included a host of new or expanded tax breaks.

The story points out that the number of households paying no federal income tax— or even getting money FROM the government—include, as you might expect, “the vast majority” of those making up to $30,000 and almost half of those making between $30,000 and $40,000.

But it also includes about a quarter of households whose earners make between $50,000 and $75,000 and 9 percent of those bringing in between $75,000 and $100,000.

I’m reminded of the discussion during the 2008 presidential campaign about what constitutes the “middle class.“

Finally, the story notes that “the issue doesn’t get a lot of attention even as lawmakers debate how to pay for policy initiatives like health reform, whether to extend the Bush tax cuts and how to reduce the deficit.“

What? Politicians treating undeniable facts as if they don’t exist? Stubbornly refusing to acknowledge any information that isn’t convenient for them? Completely ignoring reality in general?

I’m shocked, I tell you. SHOCKED!!

Abortion issue still clouding health care bill

By Jennifer J. Foster

If all the sound bites about how the proposed overhaul of America’s health care system may or may not relate to the abortion issue, you’re not alone.

As I’ve said before, Congress could straighten this all out in a hurry by simply writing into the overhaul an extension—a continuation, actually—of a 30-year-old federal ban on taxpayer funding of elective abortions: Such a ban would remove the issue from the table, as it would preclude future congressional panels from being able to include abortion in any government-offered, -sponsored or -subsidized health care plan.

But Congress hasn’t done that. And considering that the speaker of the House is a liberal Democratic female from San Francisco, we have no reason to believe they actually might.

So the fight goes on ... and it’s coming to a head.

If you’re wondering what the bottom line is on all this, check out this excellent story from The New York Times. It surveys the issue in a broad and comprehensive way.

Here’s the operative excerpt:

Democratic Congressional leaders say the latest House and Senate health care bills preserve the spirit of the current ban on federal abortion financing by requiring insurers to segregate their public subsidies into separate accounts from individual premiums and co-payments. Insurers could use money only from private sources to pay for abortions.

But opponents say that is not good enough, because only a line on an insurers’ accounting ledger would divide the federal money from the payments for abortions. The subsidies would still help people afford health coverage that included abortion.

The Times also points out:

The question looms as a test of President Obama’s campaign pledge to support abortion rights but seek middle ground with those who do not. Mr. Obama has promised for months that the health care overhaul would not provide federal money to pay for elective abortions, but White House officials have declined to spell out what he means.

Interesting ... and so absolutely right. This is the president’s chance to put his policy where his mouth is.

The problem for the president is that he has run his mouth in both directions. For all his talk about making nice and finding common ground with pro-life Americans, this speech he gave on the campaign trail still rings out over the web.

Finally, guess who’s leading this fight to ensure that tax money isn’t spent on elective abortions?

U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak, a Democrat from Michigan.

Yes, a pro-life Democrat. Contrary to popular belief, there are plenty of them:

At least 31 House Democrats have signed various recent letters to the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, urging her to allow a vote on a measure to restrict use of the subsidies to pay for abortion, including 25 who joined more than 100 Republicans on a letter delivered Monday.

Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan, a leading Democratic abortion opponent, said he had commitments from 40 Democrats to block the health care bill unless they have a chance to include the restrictions.

After months of pushing the issue, Mr. Stupak said in an interview, Mr. Obama finally called him 10 days ago. “He said: ‘Look, try to get this thing worked out among the Democrats. We want you to work it out within the party,’ ” Mr. Stupak said, adding that Mr. Obama did not say whether he supported the segregated-money provision or a more sweeping restriction. “We got his attention, which we never had before.”

After the president called, Mr. Stupak said, Ms. Pelosi agreed to meet with Mr. Stupak on Tuesday to discuss his proposals for the first time, her office confirmed. Her spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, said in a statement, “As we have throughout the process, we are meeting with our members to listen to their concerns, consulting with the administration, and making progress.”

What? The president wouldn’t commit one way or the other? The president didn’t indicate a preference? The president left the congressmen to figure it all out on their own?

Hmm ... that sounds familiar.

The Times says that the issue, which has been simmering for more than a year as health care reform and the economy have dominated the domestic agenda, is expected to come up in the Senate Finance Committee meeting today. If pro-life members fail to win the accommodations they seek, they expect a big fight on the floor: At least two Democratic senators are supportive of the cause.

See also:

Democrats for Life of America: A group with a self-explanatory name if there ever was one.

She digs the jewels

By Jennifer J. Foster

Let’s play a word association game.

Quick: What word comes to mind when you think of former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright?

Diplomat?

Cosmopolite?

Clintonista?

How about ... glamour?

No? Well, she’d like to change that.

Albright has a new book out that details—seriously, y’all—her wide collection of brooches and how they impacted her practice of diplomacy as Secretary of State.

She used them to send a sort of secret message to world leaders, according to this NPR story:

“As it turned out, there were just a lot of occasions to either commemorate a particular event or to signal how I felt,“ she says.

There were balloons, butterflies and flowers to signify optimism and, when diplomatic talks were going slowly, crabs and turtles to indicate frustration.

After the Russians were caught tapping the State Department, Albright protested by wearing a pin with a giant bug on it. On days when Albright felt she had to do “a little stinging and deliver a tough message,“ she wore a wasp pin.

At one point, Russian leader Vladimir Putin told President Clinton that he knew what the mood of a meeting would be by looking at Albright’s left shoulder. (Albright’s pin with three monkeys, which she wore when discussing Chechnya, was meant to draw attention to the fact that Russia took a “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” stance toward the Chechen atrocities.)

OK. Fair enough. So she found new uses for old things.

Not exactly.

She stocked up on brooches after wearing an antique snake pin to a meeting with Iraqi leaders after former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein referred to her as “a serpant.“

But before you start freaking out that the Secretary of State went out and assembled an indulgent jewelry collection at taxpayers’ expense, you should know that while it was likely taxpayer-funded, it was hardly extravagant.

Albright says It is mostly costume jewelry.

Um, I don’t know what’s worse: Wasting tax dollars on jewelry to try to get a point across that you won’t make out loud, or wearing fake jewelry while you’re representing the United States of America.

You can read Albright’s book, “Read My Pins,“ and form your own opinion.

But the will set you back $40.

No word on how much costume jewelry will that buy.

 

This week’s column

By Jennifer J. Foster

If you missed it in the Saturday edition of the Opelika-Auburn News, or if you live outside the print delivery area, my most recent column is now online. Check it out:

Consider the words, not just the speaker

This is the companion piece to the column I wrote last week, which you can read here if you missed it.

What do you think? Does it bother you if you find yourself agreeing with something Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann says?

Now, let me ask you this: Does it bother you that it bothers you?

It should.

Reason, not rants; substance, not smirks

By Jennifer J. Foster

Stuart Spencer rocks.

I have to admit that I wasn’t familiar with Spencer, the 82-year-old California political organizer who set up four of Ronal Reagan’s campaigns (including his runs for president).

But he popped up in an L.A. Times column about political commentary this week. He shared some thoughts on why he eschews both Fox News and MSNBC—and, ironically, it’s for the same reason:

He has no interest in watching one side lob grenades at the other in nightly warfare that further divides the nation along cultural and political lines.

Hey! Me either!

As for FNC and its man of the moment, the nearly ubiquitous Glenn Beck:

Spencer can’t watch the maudlin Fox host, who blubbers over the destruction of the nation by a president he calls a racist.

Hey! Me either!

As for MSNBC and its flagman, Keith Olbermann, the former ESPN anchor who, with his ham-handed partisan vitriol, has turned his broadcast career into a sad shadow of its former state:

Spencer wants reason, not rants. He wants substance, not smirks.

Hey! Me too!

It annoys him that Fox can’t admit that Sarah Palin was a cynical and preposterous choice as a VP candidate (“she just wasn’t qualified”), and MSNBC can’t admit that President Obama is too reliant on government cures or that he’s tall on rhetoric and short on details.

Hey! Me too!

Spencer doesn’t see why those interested in educating themselves on matters of national importance would turn to either for reliable information.

Hey! Me either!

... And so on, and so forth.

If you’re not familiar with him, you should know that Spencer, who ran something like 400 political campaigns in his long career, is no stranger to partisan politics. On the contrary, he benefitted and made a living from them.

But “the tenor was different then,“ he says, recounting the days when President Reagan “worked closely with Sen. Ted Kennedy on budget matters and international disarmament, and with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on the end of the Cold War.“

On Thursday nights, Reagan invited Democrat Tip O’Neill, the House speaker, to the White House for hours of storytelling and problem-solving.

It was a time when you sat down with your political counterparts and tried to find common ground. If the other guy got the best of you, you would look him in the eye and say, “OK, you win. But I’m going to get you next time.“

I was also struck by Spencer’s take on how money in politics affects this broadening partisan divide:

I asked Spencer if part of the problem is the growing influence of money, which makes politicians more beholden to special interests and therefore more divided. Maybe, he said, but money was always a factor in politics. Today there’s also a different kind of money in play: the fortunes that TV and radio broadcasts make by having gas bag commentators fan the flames day and night.

This is a great story that every American should read and reflect upon. Kudos to Los Angeles Times writer Steve Lopez for recognizing a great story, making an out-of-the-way trip to visit a terrific source and writing an article that is as useful as it is thoughtful. The last line, especially, is great.

Check out the whole thing here ...

... Then do your country a favor by passing it along.