So, I got the e-mail below from a family member. I don't want to get into a fight because, well, his mind probably isn't open. But I would like to get in a jab or two.
As it stands now it would appear Obama will become our next president. Certainly I respect the right of everyone to vote for the person they feel is the best candidate for the job. I also hope that vote is based on a full understanding of some of the potential results it may bring. One of those results is a removal of a check and balance to what is likely to be a super-majority in the House and Senate for democrats. Not only will the check of a presidential veto be gone in the face of a democratically controlled house and senate but also the internal senate check of the filibuster. In order to stop a filibuster senate rules requires that 60 senators vote to bring the the debate to at close by invoking a cloture. Its very likely Democrats will have the super-majority needed to do this in the senate. This will open the door for the enactment of legislation that will have significant impact on all of our freedoms to chose for ourselves. I personally refer to this as the creation of the nany state.
Here are a couple of examples of likely legislation we will be subject to given the lack of checks and balances:
401k - remove pretax status of 401 k contributions (would be taxed on it)
Create a Government run universal Guaranteed Retirement account in its place. Here is what was recently recommended to a congressional subcommittee by professors from the New School for Social Research Department of Economics:
-Removal of pretax status of contributions to 401ks (represents a new tax burden to all workers)
-Requirement that 5% of your wages annually be given to a government run retirement account that would provide for a 3% annual return
Use of the new tax revenues created from taxing what was previously a pretax 401k contribution to fund a $600 annual contribution into the new Guaranteed Retirement accounts for every worker. For workers who make minimum wage they would not be required to make the 5% contribution but would still get the $600 contribution generated from the new tax receipts (wealth transfer)
The proposers feel that private companies who currently manage 401k plans have unfairly profited from the existence of 401ks and the recent downturn of the stock market shows people have been hurt by this system (playing on fear and disregarding those have benefited from higher returns in prior years). I personally feel I would rather have a choice as to where my money is invested (available through 401ks) rather than the Government deciding it for me and using an increased tax from me to give to others. If a person propertly allocates their 401k investments based on risk profile and age they are reasonably protected from market downturns but apparently some would rather have the government decide for us. Lastly, this will have a negative impact on jobs of people who work for companies that administer 401k plans.
Creation of wage insurance
This would be a new payroll tax that would provide a government wage subsidy for a period of years to those who loose their job and take another job at lower pay through the government paying them 50% of the difference between their previous job and their new lower paying job. Interesting idea that is very popular in European Socialist countries. Of course it is yet another wealth transfer and new tax burden to many.
Re-establishment of the Fairness Doctrine as a law
This would be under the guise of free speech but would likely have the opposite impact. Its really a democratic party sponsored agenda item to put conservative talk radio stations out of business. How could that be you may ask? Rather than simply changing the radio station (personal choice ability we all have now) it would put into law the requirement for media outlets to provide a 50:50 viewpoint across their programming. The effect of this would be to cause conservative talk radio to either go out of business or change their format to something completely different. This is because they would be forced to either hire additional personell or pay for additional programming reflecting liberal view points which historically do not draw radio audiences and advertising dollars in that medium. You may recall the one attempt at liberal talk radio - Air America went bankrupt. Again rather than re lying on personal judgment to simply change the station democrats will look to put opposing views out of business through legislation.
Removal of FICA tax limits. Currently at around $106k of wages. Additional tax burden not discussed in the context of Obama's tax reduction for those making less than $250k (recently adjusted down to those making less then $200k once the debates ended)
These are a few likely outcomes. As I run across more, I will pass them along to all of you.
Here are a couple of thoughts for response---
- Five years ago, Frist (Republican leader of the Senate) said filibusters are, "a formula for tyranny by the minority."
- Obama is not in favor of re-instating the Fairness Doctrine. And, the Fairness Doctrine DOES NOT mandate 50:50 split on views.