Writing for the Washington Post, Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite of the Center for American Progress proclaims that Republicans have declared a “war on poor women.” In the New York Times editorial “The War on Women,” readers were told that “Republicans in the House of Representatives are mounting an assault on women's health and freedom” by proposing to remove federal funding of Planned Parenthood. We are ominously warned that “this is just the beginning.” Those warnings are part of a chorus that includes U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer and Kirsten Gillibrand, and various media outlets.
According to the Times editorial, a Republican resolution in the House of Representatives called for “egregious cuts” for Planned Parenthood and the federal family planning program known as Title X which helps low-income women gain access to contraception, cervical cancer screenings (Pap smear and HPV tests), and STD testing. The Times claims that without Title X, an increase in unintended pregnancies would preposterously “result in 400,000 more abortions a year.” The GOP bill “slices $50 million” for “prenatal health care... and health care for 31 million children” and leads the Times to conclude that “[t]hese are treacherous times for women's reproductive rights...”
In others words, the Republican party is going to kill women, deny health care for 31 million children, and look the other way at “400,000 more abortions a year.” Right.
Who really believes that dramatically reducing federal funding for Planned Parenthood and similar groups equates to “mounting an assault on women's health?” Such an assertion is tantamount to saying that proposed cuts and cost-saving measures in Medicare and Medicaid (as outlined in President Obama's health care reform law) are an assault on the poor, sick, and elderly.
In what meaningful way are women's freedoms and reproductive rights assaulted if the government decides to remove subsidies for abortion providers like Planned Parenthood? The demand for the services that Planned Parenthood provides will persist without federal subsidy, and services will continue to be provided albeit at a higher cost for clients.
The Supreme Court has decided that the Second Amendment entails an individual's right to own a firearm, and yet no one in his right mind would accuse the government of “assaulting” our freedoms if it decides to not subsidize a gun manufacturer or offer tax rebates for ammunition. By the same token, reproductive rights are not “assaulted” when the government doesn't subsidize Planned Parenthood.
The Times is not alone. MoveOn.org also insists that the GOP is embarking on a War on Women. Speaking on behalf of MoveOn in the professionally produced “We Won't Go Back” video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zCJigrTb9Q), television actress Lisa Edelstein of “House” fame tells us that Republicans “launched an all-out assault on women's health” in an effort to send women “back to the back alley.” She warns of how the GOP aims to coerce women into implementing coat hangers in their quest for “vital services” (she means abortions), and her message was echoed by “House” co-star Olivia Wilde.
Incidentally, Edelstein and Wilde are both vegans; abortion is fine, subsidizing abortion is virtuous... but please step away from the sardines.
The heated rhetoric from the Left surrounding the so-called War on Women is particularly odd when one considers the mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona and the widespread condemnation of conservatives and Tea Party activists shortly afterward. The Times faulted “many on the right” for exploiting “invective” and “the arguments of division.” Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote that “violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate.” What exactly did conservatives invoke? Dangerous words, of course, like “in the crosshairs” and militaristic jargon like “campaign.”
Yet, phrases like “War on Women” and “assault on women's health and freedom” are promiscuously being used against conservatives by some of the same outlets that fault conservatives for creating a “climate of hate.” Suppose that some madman (or madwoman) decides to shoot Congressman Mike Pence (R-Indiana) because of his opposition to federal subsidies of Planned Parenthood. Will the Times blame... itself?
Let us hope that sensibility is restored in the debate over federal funding of Planned Parenthood. Many Republicans have already been unfairly derided as enemies of women – and “this is just the beginning.”
Monday, August 29, 2011
Monday, August 22, 2011
Billionaire investor and philanthropist Warren Buffett has called on Congress to “stop coddling the super-rich” and raise taxes on the wealthy to deal with our nation's fiscal woes in his most recent New York Times op-ed (www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html). He claims that the taxes he pays are only 17.4 percent of his taxable income and that it is time to engage in shared sacrifice and raise taxes on him and his “mega-rich friends” (those who make $1 million or more a year in income, dividends, and capital gains). Buffett's seemingly altruistic recommendations parallel that of fellow billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates' proposal in 2010 for Washington state to create an income tax for those making more than $200,000 annually. His tax proposals might seem like a quick and easy way to raise revenue, but what are the real consequences of his proposals?
According to Buffet, we need not worry about how raising such taxes might undermine economic growth. He writes, “I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone... shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain.” Such an assertion flies in the face of elementary microeconomics. Increasing taxes on the potential profit from an investment alters the expected return and rational investors will adjust their behavior accordingly.
He insists that “people invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off.” Never? Does Buffett expect people to believe that investment behavior is somehow different from all other forms of economic behavior where people weigh costs against benefits? If so, one wonders why we don't have a capital gains tax of 99.9 percent!
During the 1950's, America's top marginal income tax rate was roughly 90 percent. Some liberals look upon those tax rates with nostalgia but only because they do not realize how little revenue the government was able to collect; few of the rich ever paid the top tax rate because they either didn't bother earning additional income that would be taxed at 90 percent or they found other ways of earning wealth so that it would be not taxed. President Kennedy changed that when he dramatically reduced taxes for the rich and revenue collection grew.
But it is not the 1950's and the top marginal tax rate is roughly 35 percent. Increasing taxes on the wealthy might very well lead to increased revenue. However, many conservatives fear that increasing revenue collection through tax increases on the wealthy will take the pressure off Washington D.C. to reduce spending and reform entitlements. Furthermore, higher taxes could make America less business friendly and less competitive in the global economy. Soaking the rich might seem like a good idea... until you run out of rich people.
The contrast between California and Texas is illuminating. High taxes in California hasn't translated into generous benefits for California where the unemployment rate is amongst the nation's highest. In Texas, tax rates are low, government services are comparable, and unemployment is amongst the nation's lowest.
Warren Buffett has undoubtedly heard such arguments but he dismisses them and proclaims, “My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress,” and that it is time for shared sacrifice. If Mr. Buffett feels that he should be paying more taxes, he could easily forgo his dividends and capital gains (where he pays a roughly 15% tax) and collect a comparable salary from Berkshire Hathaway instead (where he would pay roughly 35%). He does not need to declare his charitable contributions and claim associated deductibles on his tax return. Yet, he states that he and many other mega-rich folks “wouldn't mind being told to pay more in taxes.” If Mr. Buffett likes paying taxes so much, why doesn't he pay more?
If he did so without announcing it in a Times op-ed, it would nullify the most tangible consequence of his tax proposals: convincing people that he is a great guy. It is that same impulse that compels someone to hold a press conference for his own philanthropy and lands him on the cover of Fortune magazine. Note the reference in his op-ed to the Giving Pledge (which he helped create) and the title of a previously published NYT Buffett op-ed: “Buy American. I am.”
To be fair, Mr. Buffett is hardly alone. Bill Gates' tax-the-rich proposal would have created a 5% percent income tax in the state of Washington for those making over $200,000. The ballot measure was defeated with 65% of voters opposing it.