Universal Health Care Benefits Everyone, Eliminates Free Riders

Positive rights should not just be viewed through the lens of entitlement. Positive rights are similar to public goods in that they provide positive benefits to society as a whole (in economics, this phenomenon is called a positive externality). This is especially true with health care. If everyone has access to good health care, the chance of serious epidemic outbreaks declines. More people are thus eligible to work. American productivity increases because workers require fewer sick days. Healthier people spend more money on other things aside from health care, stimulating the economy. (For good explanations on health care as a public good, click here and here.)

A Minimum Living Standard in the World’s Wealthiest Country

In the last post, I illustrated how the positive right to an education is essential to a modern economy. Most Americans do not question the right to a public education, perhaps because it has been a fact of American life for over a century. Other positive rights adopted to some extent by American society, which are unfortunately more controversial, include the right of the disabled to a dignified existence, the right to food and shelter, and the right to life-saving emergency care. Most recently, through the 2010 Affordable Care Act, we adopted in principle the right to adequate comprehensive health care.

The Right to a Public Education

In my last post, I mentioned certain “positive rights” that Americans have come to assume are part of the social contract. Public education is perhaps the least controversial example of a positive right in American. As a society, we generally believe that every child has a right to a high school education, regardless of his or her parents’ income level. However, with the recent upswing of right-wing extremism, some (generally Ron Paul supporters) question the right to a public education because it requires redistribution of wealth throughout a community. Many extreme libertarians view government taxation for any kind of social program, including public education, as theft, and advocate a system of government where any redistributive program do not exist.

Defending a Century of American Progress

Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, in an oft-seen video clip, describes how a thriving industrialized economy is dependent on government taxation and redistribution for the creation of key institutions, infrastructure, and social programs:

She notes, “there is nobody in this country who got rich on his own.” She mentions factory owners who “move [their] goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for,” and “hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.” She adds that police and fire services, that “the rest of us paid for” kept them safe and prevented them from having to hire their own security and fire defense forces. She ends by saying, “Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Destroying Conservative-Style Reform: GOP Turns on Insurance Mandate at Its Own Peril

In January 2009, Mitt Romney penned some advice to incoming President Barack Obama regarding health care reform in a USA Today op-ed piece. Romney suggested Obama look to “the lessons we learned in Massachusetts,” in contemplating federal-level reform, noting specifically:

First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages ‘free riders’ to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others.

The Massachusetts reform aimed at getting virtually all our citizens insured. In that, it worked: 98 percent of our citizens are insured, 440,000 previously uninsured are covered and almost half of those purchased insurance on their own, with no subsidy.

In a January 2008 GOP Presidential Primary debate, Romney underscored his belief that the insurance mandate should be applied at a national level. When the moderator noted, “Romney’s system has mandates in Massachusetts, although you backed away from mandates on a national basis,” Romney interjected, “No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work.”

Gingrich: Fox News Analysts Don't Know What They Are Talking About

Now and then politicians let their tongues slip and tell the public what they really think about certain things. Last November, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich shared what most astute observers of Fox News already know about the right-wing news network, but what no conservative will ever admit – that much of what is said on the network is not factual and is often complete rubbish. When a woman asked Gingrich a complicated question about the Obama Administration’s AIDS policy at a gathering in South Carolina, Newt indicated that the information presented in the question was new to him and that he did not know enough to give a response. (Gingrich should be given credit for being honest about that and not trying to make up an answer from thin air on something he didn’t know about - or something for which he didn’t have a pre-rehearsed, memorized talking point.) Then Gingrich said, “One of the real changes that comes when you start running for President -- as opposed to being an analyst on Fox -- is I have to actually know what I'm talking about.”

Around the time of Gingrich’s comment, a poll from the Fairleigh Dickinson University revealed that Fox News viewers are less informed about current events than people who don’t watch any news! A political science professor at the university explained the poll results: "Because of the controls for partisanship, we know these results are not just driven by Republicans or other groups being more likely to watch Fox News. Rather, the results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don’t watch any news at all."

Thank Romney for Underscoring Need for "Buffet Rule"

After losing the South Carolina Primary to Newt Gingrich, possibly in part due to his waffling at the pre-Primary debates about releasing his tax returns, Mitt Romney released his tax returns for the past two years, which show that he paid about 14% in federal taxes on income of nearly $43 million. The timing of Romney's tax return release was impeccable- for Democrats. For months, President Obama and Democrats have been attacking Republicans for wanting to maintain tax breaks and loopholes for the super-wealthy. Last August, Warren Buffet pointed out in an op-ed that he paid a lower federal tax rate than his secretary in 2010. He paid about 17.4%, whereas his office staff paid an average of 36%. Buffet rightly pointed out that this simply isn't fair. He added, "it’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice."

Last October, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service released a report that indicated 25% of all households earning at least $1 million annually are paying a smaller share of their income than a large segment of the middle class. The report adds that 94,500 millionaires pay a lower tax rate than most of the middle class and that 7,000 millionaires pay no income taxes at all.

The reason for this is because of the payroll tax (Social Security tax), which doesn't tax income above $107,000, and the capital gains tax rate, which is 15%. Investment income is usually taxed at this rate, which is much lower than earned income tax rates. Many of the super-wealthy make their money via investment income rather than earned income.

President Obama has talked about "the Buffet rule" as a way to help fight the budget deficit by implementing a higher minimum tax rate for people in the highest income bracket, to ensure they don't pay a lower percentage of income in taxes than the middle class. As he has stated, millionaires shouldn't be paying lower tax rates than their secretaries. Mitt Romney's revelation that he paid an effective federal tax rate of 14% underscores the notion that it is completely unfair for the super wealthy to pay less in overall taxes than the middle class. And it adds to the powerful narrative that was created by the Occupy Wall Street movement, whose underlying theme deals with the challenges posed by the incredible gap between the top 1% of earners in the U.S. and the rest of the country, and the disproportionate amount of power that the top 1% hold. Romney's tax returns show that we are in dire need of tax reforms that will create a fairer revenue system. If Romney becomes the GOP nominee, which seems pretty likely at this point, you can count on Romney's ridiculously low tax rate as becoming a major campaign issue. It will help show that the GOP's insistence in preserving Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy and Romney's advocacy for even more tax cuts for top earners are entirely out of touch with our federal budget deficit reality and lack any sense of fairness. So I thank Mitt Romney for serving as a poster-child for all that is wrong with the fiscal policies he and his party tirelessly support.

The Anti-Life Pro-Lifers

Have you ever come across someone who vehemently supports the criminalization of most or all forms of abortion? Chances are that person opposed with equal fervor President Obama's health care reform bill and most, if not all forms of public assistance to those in need. It is also quite likely that that person supported the Iraq War, which we waged on a nation that had never attacked us and was not a significant threat to us. That person probably also whole-heartedly embraces the death penalty the way it is applied today in our criminal justice system. I find it incredibly disturbing when so many conservatives claim that they value the sanctity of life, yet show no concern for the living.

I'm not trying to criticize the "pro-life" position that advocates restrictions or complete prohibition of abortion. I wrote two posts (here and here) where I articulated my views about abortion and the role of government in regulating it. I do, however, have a problem with people who claim to value the sanctity of life, yet do not care for the most vulnerable living among us.

After Iraq, Support the Troops (UPDATED)

The last convoy of U.S. troops departed from Iraq last week, marking the end of a nearly 9-year war. I am grateful that the Obama Administration did not extend the troop presence any longer, despite harsh criticism from neoconservative Republicans like Mitt Romney, who would have preferred we kept troops in Iraq almost into perpetuity. I was never a supporter of the war, even prior to its commencement. The consequences of the war have been far reaching and disastrous for the U.S. on many levels. Some of the most important consequences are as follows:

Sage Election-Year Counsel from the First Presidency

Each election year, the Church predictably issues statements affirming its political neutrality, which I find both refreshing and reassuring amid all of the mingling of scripture with the philosophies of men that we see in many churches. A few decades ago, during a presidential election season, President Hugh B. Brown of the First Presidency stated the following at a BYU commencement address:

You young people are leaving your university at the time in which our nation is engaged in an abrasive and increasingly strident process of electing a president. I wonder if you would permit me, one who has managed to survive a number of these events, to pass on to you a few words of counsel.

First I would like you to be reassured that the leaders of both major political parties in this land are men of integrity and unquestioned patriotism. Beware of those who feel obliged to prove their own patriotism by calling into question the loyalty of others. Be skeptical of those who attempt to demonstrate their love of country by demeaning its institutions. Know that men of both major political parties who bear the nation’s executive, legislative, and judicial branches are men of unquestioned loyalty and we should stand by and support them, and this refers not only to one party but to all. Strive to develop a maturity of mind and emotion and a depth of spirit which enables you to differ with others on matters of politics without calling into question the integrity of those with whom you differ. Allow within the bounds of your definition of religious orthodoxy variation of political belief. Do not have the temerity to dogmatize on issues where the Lord has seen fit to be silent. (emphasis added)

A Pivotal Moment for President Obama and America

President Barack Obama visited Osawatomie, Kansas last week to speak about the danger of the growing economic inequality in America and the threat this currently poses to the middle class and our country as a whole. I thought this was the most important speech of his Presidency thus far because it clearly illustrated the monumental challenges we face in dealing with a weak economy, high unemployment, and an eroding middle class. He emphatically connected the success of the middle class with the success of America and described how investments in education, infrastructure, and science and technology along with tax and financial industry reform are critical to our economic recovery. The speech was 55 minutes long, so I highlighted what I thought were his key points:

Values Voters for Newt

As former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has recently become the latest fad in the never-ending search for an 'un-Romney' in the GOP Presidential Primary race, I think it is important to reflect on a matter of character. Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles noted in an interview a few years ago that while the Church is politically neutral, it teaches its members to "seek out and find good, honest men and women of value, with values and virtue and honesty and integrity and encourage them to run for office, and then to use their agency to vote for whomever they choose."

No Politics in Church!

Have you ever been in a Church meeting where someone, a speaker in sacrament meeting, or a teacher or student in Sunday School, Priesthood, or Relief Society, makes a blatant political statement? Perhaps it was only a facetious but degrading comment about a particular Obama Administration policy. If it occurred a few years ago, it may have been a statement of support for President Bush or the Iraq war. Too often, I've heard people make political comments in Church meetings, usually denigrating Democratic politicians and policies while supporting Republican politicians and policies. I have even heard people make disparaging comments in Church meetings about Church members who happen to be Democrats. Political statements, regardless of whether they are conservative, liberal, or moderate, do not belong in our sacred Church meetings.

Communists Like Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith

Conservatives often invoke our country's Founding Fathers as well as prominent historical figures like economist Adam Smith, whose ideas about the "invisible hand" of free markets helped form the theoretical foundation of modern capitalism, when they advocate far-right economic policies. Lately, there has been a lot of talk by GOP presidential candidates about creating a flat tax system in the U.S., particularly from Texas Governor Rick Perry and Godfather's Pizza founder Herman Cain. Ironically, you'll never hear a conservative pundit or politician point out that Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, among other historical figures, were strongly in favor of progressive taxation.

Mitt Flips on Climate Change (Is Anyone Surprised?)

Less than two weeks after I wrote a post praising Mitt Romney (and Jon Huntsman) for their admirable stances supporting science's position on climate change, Romney changed his position! In June, Romney stated the following to an audience in New Hampshire, affirming the existence of global warming: