State of the Union Adress: 2007
If you've been following the news for the past few weeks or months, then President Bush's annual State of the Union Address on Tuesday night held few surprises. His speech was pretty much in line with expectations. He touched on healthcare, the war in Iraq, and he made overtures that he would try to work "across the aisle" with Democrats. This last one was definitely no surprise, as he basically has no choice but to work with the Democrats if he wants to get anything done in the last two years of his presidency.
As for healthcare, he put forth a mildly interesting, if only questionably potent, idea for a healthcare tax break, basically to encourage people to buy healthcare on their own if it is not provided by their employers. This would offer something like (and forgive me if I botch this) a $7,500 per year tax deduction for single people who buy their own healthcare, and a $15,000 per year deduction for families who do so.
Okay. What does this mean? I know next to nothing about taxes except that paying them confuses the hell out of me and I wish they would disappear. Having said that, the new plan roughly means that a family who buys its own healthcare would not pay taxes on the first $15,000 of its income that it spends on healthcare per year. Given a 30% tax rate--which I'm admittedly pulling out of thin air--that would be a tax savings of $4,500. For a single person who buys his own healthcare, given the same tax rate, the savings would be $2,250.
Sounds great, right? It is, except for the fact that the 47 million Americans who have no healthcare are probably the people who make the least amount of money per year, and probably would spend nothing close to $15,000 per year on healthcare, because they possibly do not even make that much per year. The only people it benefits are people like a buddy of mine who is a freelance computer programmer, is single, buys his own heath insurance and has pretty much no need for a tax break. The people it hurts the most are the people, like me, who get health insurance from our employers. In our case, it will actually cost us a bit extra because the tax break money is coming directly out of the hands of the employers who offer the plans, and just like Wal-Mart in reverse, they'll pass the extra cost on to us, the average, hard-working American stiffs.
While I'm a little annoyed that I'll be paying more for other people to get a minuscule tax break, I at least agree with the intent of this initiative. The healthcare system is the single biggest cancer of the several cancers killing this country. Though the President's plan makes a small dent in a huge problem, it is a step in the direction of fixing something that is wrong with the American system.
The President also addressed the troop surge and his continued hopes and plans, if you can call them that, for the war in Iraq. I've covered the troop surge in another post (see Troop Surge) so I won't go into it now, but suffice it to say, he didn't say anything that he hadn't said before, except that he seemed to almost plead with the American people to "give him another chance," or words to that effect. Sadly, it doesn't seem as though the American people, or the Congress or anybody else has any say in whether or not those troops go to Iraq. The President can plead all he wants, but he still comes of like a sad old, drunken Uncle who has borrowed another $20 to go to the track because "this time I've got a winner, see." Only this time he's borrowing human lives.
In the lead to this posting I said there were no surprises. Okay, that was not completely accurate. The President did touch on his thoughts about energy policy over the next decade or so, including further research into ethanol production and other alternative fuels. He also mentioned something about doubling the strategic oil reserve, which is to daily U.S. oil consumption what an M&M is to your daily diet; virtually nothing. Given the man's well documented connections to the oil industry, I'm not sure what any of that means. Probably nothing. Still, I think it is important that some of these issues are making it into his addresses. At least it sets some kind of framework for further debate and possibly--God forbid--some action someday.
I have yet to digest a transcript of his speech, but I also did unmistakably hear the President say something about making easier for civilians to serve in the military. If anyone knows what he meant by this, please comment below and enlighten me. It does not strike me that there are a lot of civilians tripping over themselves to serve in the military. If there were, I don't think we'd have the enlistment crises we have now in the armed services. If this involves me being taken away to get shot at, then I vehemently oppose it. If it, on the other hand, represents a way people can serve their country without actually joining the military, then I think its actually a good thing. I've always been in favor of a mandatory year of military service, like they have in Italy and some other countries. In most cases enlistees perform non-combat oriented, civil service-type tasks. However, now is probably not the time to be pitching some kind of rosy-cheeked, two-thumbs up, "Ay, atta-boy!"-type plan to get the average citizen involved in the military. Maybe after we stop getting involved in unnecessary and unpopular wars it will be time for that, but not now.
Lastly, the President said a few lines about cooperating with the Democrats. I don't remember him ever saying anything about this before, for the past six years while the Congress was dominated by Republicans. This shot is so easy, I almost don't even want to take it much further. It was fun to watch him try and sound like a great compromiser, an advocate of bi-partisan communion. He even said something like, "Americans don't care what side of the aisle we sit on, as long as we know how to reach across." Actually, we do pretty much care what side of the aisle our politicians sit on, that's why we have different parties and that's why we vote. It's amazing how enlightened people can become when they have no other options. We'll see if the President meant what he said.
As for healthcare, he put forth a mildly interesting, if only questionably potent, idea for a healthcare tax break, basically to encourage people to buy healthcare on their own if it is not provided by their employers. This would offer something like (and forgive me if I botch this) a $7,500 per year tax deduction for single people who buy their own healthcare, and a $15,000 per year deduction for families who do so.
Okay. What does this mean? I know next to nothing about taxes except that paying them confuses the hell out of me and I wish they would disappear. Having said that, the new plan roughly means that a family who buys its own healthcare would not pay taxes on the first $15,000 of its income that it spends on healthcare per year. Given a 30% tax rate--which I'm admittedly pulling out of thin air--that would be a tax savings of $4,500. For a single person who buys his own healthcare, given the same tax rate, the savings would be $2,250.
Sounds great, right? It is, except for the fact that the 47 million Americans who have no healthcare are probably the people who make the least amount of money per year, and probably would spend nothing close to $15,000 per year on healthcare, because they possibly do not even make that much per year. The only people it benefits are people like a buddy of mine who is a freelance computer programmer, is single, buys his own heath insurance and has pretty much no need for a tax break. The people it hurts the most are the people, like me, who get health insurance from our employers. In our case, it will actually cost us a bit extra because the tax break money is coming directly out of the hands of the employers who offer the plans, and just like Wal-Mart in reverse, they'll pass the extra cost on to us, the average, hard-working American stiffs.
While I'm a little annoyed that I'll be paying more for other people to get a minuscule tax break, I at least agree with the intent of this initiative. The healthcare system is the single biggest cancer of the several cancers killing this country. Though the President's plan makes a small dent in a huge problem, it is a step in the direction of fixing something that is wrong with the American system.
The President also addressed the troop surge and his continued hopes and plans, if you can call them that, for the war in Iraq. I've covered the troop surge in another post (see Troop Surge) so I won't go into it now, but suffice it to say, he didn't say anything that he hadn't said before, except that he seemed to almost plead with the American people to "give him another chance," or words to that effect. Sadly, it doesn't seem as though the American people, or the Congress or anybody else has any say in whether or not those troops go to Iraq. The President can plead all he wants, but he still comes of like a sad old, drunken Uncle who has borrowed another $20 to go to the track because "this time I've got a winner, see." Only this time he's borrowing human lives.
In the lead to this posting I said there were no surprises. Okay, that was not completely accurate. The President did touch on his thoughts about energy policy over the next decade or so, including further research into ethanol production and other alternative fuels. He also mentioned something about doubling the strategic oil reserve, which is to daily U.S. oil consumption what an M&M is to your daily diet; virtually nothing. Given the man's well documented connections to the oil industry, I'm not sure what any of that means. Probably nothing. Still, I think it is important that some of these issues are making it into his addresses. At least it sets some kind of framework for further debate and possibly--God forbid--some action someday.
I have yet to digest a transcript of his speech, but I also did unmistakably hear the President say something about making easier for civilians to serve in the military. If anyone knows what he meant by this, please comment below and enlighten me. It does not strike me that there are a lot of civilians tripping over themselves to serve in the military. If there were, I don't think we'd have the enlistment crises we have now in the armed services. If this involves me being taken away to get shot at, then I vehemently oppose it. If it, on the other hand, represents a way people can serve their country without actually joining the military, then I think its actually a good thing. I've always been in favor of a mandatory year of military service, like they have in Italy and some other countries. In most cases enlistees perform non-combat oriented, civil service-type tasks. However, now is probably not the time to be pitching some kind of rosy-cheeked, two-thumbs up, "Ay, atta-boy!"-type plan to get the average citizen involved in the military. Maybe after we stop getting involved in unnecessary and unpopular wars it will be time for that, but not now.
Lastly, the President said a few lines about cooperating with the Democrats. I don't remember him ever saying anything about this before, for the past six years while the Congress was dominated by Republicans. This shot is so easy, I almost don't even want to take it much further. It was fun to watch him try and sound like a great compromiser, an advocate of bi-partisan communion. He even said something like, "Americans don't care what side of the aisle we sit on, as long as we know how to reach across." Actually, we do pretty much care what side of the aisle our politicians sit on, that's why we have different parties and that's why we vote. It's amazing how enlightened people can become when they have no other options. We'll see if the President meant what he said.
Comments
the cuz