by | Mar 9, 2012
Perhaps no issue better illustrates the philosophical divide between left-wing Democrats and right-wing Republicans than the Earned Income Tax Credit. Here in Iowa a theatrical stunt a few weeks back by ultra-Liberal Iowa City Democrat Senator Joe Bolkcom put the issue front and center. In the hopes of pressuring Governor Branstad to support a huge increase in the Iowa Earned Income Tax Credit, Pleasantville resident Julie Heck was brought in to symbolize the need for this action by taking part in a press conference before then testifying in front of the Ways and Means Committee. Ms. Heck is a single mother of three who is currently receiving the Iowa Earned Income Tax credit, and on this day set about making the case that while she is glad to have it—it sure would be nice to get more of our money.
While Democrats were no doubt tickled by both the media exposure and the perceived effectiveness of this spectacle, the realities surrounding her specific situation, including her own stunning words, expose the utter disregard that liberal Democrats have for all Iowa taxpayers.
The Press Conference
In the press conference Ms. Heck says that she is a single mother of three who works full time and attends college full time at Simpson. She made $33,000 in income last year. Beyond not paying a penny in Federal income tax, she instead received a $5,279 check from the Federal government which combined $2,279 from the Federal E.I.T.C and another $3,000 from the Federal Child Tax Credit. Receiving the Federal E.I.T.C in turn qualified her to receive an additional $160 from the Iowa E.I.T.C. Without getting into all the numbers, after using a portion of her Federal refund to pay the $410 she owed to the state of Iowa, she ended up not only with a zero dollar income tax burden, but instead was actually paid $4,869 by the government.
[wp-youtube-hd-large]7jsMZEhuwbc[/wp-youtube-hd-large]
While so much is wrong with this picture, two things are particularly disturbing. Firstly, instead of being grateful to live in a system that allows her to receive a net profit of $4,869 from the income tax code, she actually had the audacity to sit in front of a microphone and decry the fact that she had to pay any Iowa income taxes at all. And, remarkably unsatisfied with what she has already received, she wants even more money—it is just unbelievable.
Perhaps the biggest slap in the face here is what she admits to spending some of this refund money on. At the 3 minute mark of the video posted above, she plainly states that she is using her Federal “refund†money to help pay for her college tuition, and then proceeds to say that some of this money also goes to match the funds her children manage to save throughout the year.
As a taxpayer who over the last two years alone has sent tens of thousands of dollars to the Federal government and several thousand more to the state of Iowa, I find these details outrageous. Let me be clear, I have no problem paying taxes to help those who are destitute, starving, or un-sheltered. However, paying for a mother of three who decides that she now wants to attend college full time is a far different matter.
Once any American citizen makes the decision to bring three human lives into the world it is solely their own responsibility to provide for those children by any means necessary.  In this case it clearly means working a second job to provide for her family instead of spending our tax dollars to attend college. I ask you this, how many hundreds of thousands of Iowans, especially small business owners, send their money into the government each year and afterwards do not have enough left over to afford schooling, or to match their children’s savings?
The Politics and Implications
Finally we have Sen. Bolkcom, the Iowa personification of this entitlement mentality, and the political and financial implications of this situation. After Ms. Heck’s statement Sen. Bolkcom threatens (at the 7:20 mark) that until the “earned†income tax credit is brought up from its current 7% to either 13% or 20%, that in his mind all tax relief for Iowans is off the table. Realize here what this man is actually saying. That before he entertains any legislation to cut the taxes of Iowans who have been throttled by actually paying high taxes for years—Ms. Heck must first receive an even larger refund.
This attitude and approach are stunning. Putting on display a woman who makes $33,000 a year, who attends college fulltime, and already receives nearly $5,000 in government money through the tax code to justify almost tripling the Iowa E.I.T.C is beyond insulting. This clearly shows all taxpayers in Iowa what little respect some have for the contributions we are making to government coffers every year.
Republicans agreed multiple times last year to increase the percentage of the Iowa E.I.T.C, largely as part of a legislative give and take they hoped would result in other tax proposals gaining passage, but the governor twice vetoed the section raising the credit. In explanation he cited his desire to instead include it in a much larger tax reform bill, though the Senate again last month passed it as a stand alone measure (SF 2161). The price tag of raising the credit to 20% would cost Iowa taxpayers $49.9 million every year after it fully phased-in in 2016. This is no doubt a number that seems tiny to Democrats, but is a big deal when you consider that Chief Justice Cady is likely to again be denied an additional $10 million in funding for our judicial system, which has been underfunded for decades.
Once again I stress that the root of my problem here is not so much the issue itself or the price tag of passing the increase. Above all else, this specific example exposes how we are losing the spirit of defiant self-sufficiency that we once had—and how quickly it is getting replaced with an attitude that instead asks ‘what more can you do for me?’ What is so galling about this is not that the government would offer assistance to people in serious need (they certainly should), but rather how that need is now defined.
While this entire production was likely staged with the sole purpose of raising the guilt level and putting public pressure on Governor Branstad to accept the increase, in reality what it raises is a much larger question:
Has the mentality throughout our state become so collectivist in nature that hard working Iowans are going to be viewed as “heartless†for not wanting to pay adults to go to college and be able to match their children’s piggy bank contributions?
If the answer is yes than Conservatives and Libertarians have a lot more work to do…and Iowans will have a lot more taxes to pay in the future.
![The Stench of Impropriety: Your Tax Dollars, Your Body Image, and The Government (Part 2 of 2)]()
by | Jul 22, 2011
The following is the second installment of a two part piece. The first is entitled “The Stench of Impropriety: Tom Harkin, Al Franken, Herbalife International, and The F.R.E.E.D Actâ€, and can be viewed below.
In part one of this piece, I introduced you to the relationship between Tom Harkin and his largest campaign contributor, Herbalife International. A partnership that demonstrates the perils of an incestuous system of politics and money, and ultimately played a part in Harkin’s introduction of the F.R.E.E.D. Act in the U.S. Senate. As bad as that looks, what the bill actually proposes to do is just as bad.
The act itself is only impressive in that it manages to hit the Liberal trifecta—it is completely devoid of any traditionally rational Constitutional basis, it increases and empowers an unelected bureaucracy to spend our money, and is a blatant attempt to further grow the entitlement base (which we can’t afford as it is now).
As the name suggests the stated mission of the bill is “to enhance and further research into the prevention and treatment of eating disorders, and for other purposesâ€. The bill opens with an assortment of claims and statistics meant to spur the reader into supporting its “heroic†intentions. Included here is that, “estimates, based on current research, indicate that at least 5,000,000 people in the U.S suffer from eating disorders including anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, binge eating disorder, and eating disorders not otherwise specified†and “anecdotal evidence suggests that as many as 11,000,000 people in the U.S, including 1,000,000 males, may also suffer from these disordersâ€.
Naturally, the way this legislation would solve this problem is to create more agencies, throw an undisclosed amount of money around, and as mentioned above, amend and expand the Social Security Act of 1935 to ensure that we as taxpayers pay as much as possible in curing our fellow citizens’ ills.
The additional bureaucracy it proposes creating would exist inside The Department of Health and Human Services and be named—I kid you not—“The Interagency Eating Disorder Councilâ€, and be funded from 2012 through 2016. To run this Council and to award grants (i.e. our tax dollars) would be the Director of The National Institute of Health, Francis S. Collins. His job would be to hand out money, as he saw fit, to various non-profits, colleges, State or local health departments, and community based organizations.
The bill states that the grant money is to be awarded for, among other things, the following reasons: to conduct a study regarding the economic costs of eating disorders that would “examine years of productive life lost, missed days of work, reduced work productivity, costs of mental health treatment, costs to family, and costs to society as a result of eating disordersâ€. In addition, money would also be required to go to “promoting positive body image development, positive self-esteem development, life skills that take into account cultural and developmental issues and the role of family, school, communities and the connection between emotional and physical health, and the prevention of bullying based on body size, shape, and weight.â€
In short it is an embodiment of the kind of financially irresponsible, Constitution-shredding, emotionally-driven, nanny-state legislation that modern day American liberals have become synonymous with.
When it comes to co-sponsor Sen. Franken, though Herbalife did throw him $250, my sense is that he is in it for the pure ideological benefit of expanding the entitlement base…otherwise known as Section 938 of the F.R.E.E.D Act.
Section 938 is entitled “Grants to Support Patient Advocacyâ€, and would essentially require an unspecified amount of our tax dollars to be spent “diagnosing†people with eating disorders and enrolling them in Federal programs. In the bills words, the funds would be spent to “provide education and outreach in community settings regarding eating disorders and associated health problems, especially among low-income, minority, and medically underserved populationsâ€, (Sect. 938(c)(1)); “providing education and outreach regarding enrollment in health insurance, including enrollment in Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)â€, (Sect. 938(c)(6)); and for, “Identifying, referring, and enrolling underserved populations in the appropriate Health Care agencies and community based programs and organizations in order to increase access to high quality health care servicesâ€, (Sect. 938(c)(6)).
It has long been believed by liberals that the surest way to get to a single payer health care system is to get enough people dependent on the government for this service that the private insurance sector can no longer exist. My view is that Sen. Franken (and probably Sen. Klobuchar and Sen. Harkin) wrote this part of the bill to hasten this process by further adding to the 16 million people that Obamacare is already slated to dump into Medicaid in the coming years.
Indeed this bill has a little something for everyone. The citizens among us deemed to have an eating disorder would get free medical attention, Herbalife International would be eligible to bill the Federal government for weight loss and eating disorder “treatmentsâ€, Al Franken could successfully move us one step closer to socialized medicine, and Harkin, well he has already gained $137,916 in campaign contributions (no matter the ultimate fate of the bill).
Those left among us who still respect the Constitution and its clear vision of the role of Federal government know that somewhere along the way we have failed it. Every single element of this bill, from the spirit in which it was offered, the language it contains, and the system it arose from is the epitome of this failure. I would argue that not only does this bill need to be stopped, but the institutionalized system of political donations from private companies needs to be abolished. Until such reform comes there will be no reprieve to the endless wave of disastrous special interest legislation that this bill represents.
It is we the American people that need to be F.R.E.E.D.
![The Stench of Impropriety: Your Tax Dollars, Your Body Image, and The Government (Part 2 of 2)]()
by John Bloom | Jul 13, 2011
The Des Moines Register’s Opinion Section on Sunday, July 3, 2011 featured a “Progressives Trifecta†of half-truths and sophistry:
Richard Doak – What if the founders were around today?
Donald Kaul – My favorite 4th of July speech
Dean Baker – Keep Social Security safe from politicians who want to save it
This week I will focus my comments on Donald Kaul’s article sub-titled “Real patriotism requires coming to terms with the grimmer side of American historyâ€.
Donald Kaul – He shares viewpoints about the things he likes and dislikes about the 4th of July. He likes back yard gatherings but he dislikes patriotic claptrap. He likes patriotism, defined as acts of citizenship and service, but dislikes speechifying. He likes the flag itself but dislikes flag-waving, defined as substitute emotionalism for rational behavior. My primary issue with his meandering opening is that he never refers to the holiday by its real name, which is Independence Day, not the “Fourth of Julyâ€.
- Flag Waving Emotionalism-His example of substituting flag-waving emotionalism for rational behavior is “War, for example. How many times have nations been led into truly stupid wars behind a flowing flag? Does the word Iraq suggest anything to you?â€
The rest of the story: Which Iraq war was Mr. Kaul referring to? Why did he select war(s) started under Republican Presidents, but not include Vietnam, started under Democrat Presidents?  There was meaningful United Nations support for both military actions in Iraq. There was minimal UN involvement in the military actions in Vietnam. His point about irrational behavior would have seemed less partisan had he said “Does the word Vietnam suggest anything to you?â€.
- Favorite Fourth of July Speech-He proceeds to inform his readers about the great black orator and civil rights leader, Frederick Douglass. He rightfully acknowledges the key role that Douglass played in pointing out the hypocrisy of the “Independence Day†celebration of 1854, a time when slavery was a legal practice in southern states and segregation a common practice almost everywhere in the United States.
The rest of the story:  Mr. Kaul does not fully inform us about the political party that was responsible for the safeguarding of slavery between 1789 and 1854.  That was the Democrat Party.  Frederick Douglass supported abolitionist John C Fremont in the 1864 Republican primary.  Lincoln, who won the nomination and the election, was a moderate, not a radical abolitionist. Douglass eventually reconciled himself with Lincoln’s shortcomings and legacy. Douglass supported Republican Ulysses S. Grant in 1868. Mr. Kaul, why not acknowledge that Frederick Douglass’ speech was about injustices imposed by Democrats, including Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson?
(On a side note, I wish influential liberal writers like Mr. Kaul would acknowledge that Republicans drafted and passed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments ending slavery, providing citizenship and voting rights to all minorities. It is a tragedy that the Supreme Court later gutted the clear intention of these amendments with the Cruikshank decision of 1876. After that, southern Democrat Senators prevented enforcement rights for 88 years until a coalition of Republican and Democrat Senators prevailed with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.)
- Tulsa Race Riot- He concludes with a review of the history of the Tulsa race riot of May 31, 1921. The Wikipedia article on this event varies substantially with Mr. Kaul’s article, but my interests are not to quibble over details.  It was a deplorable event driven by unreasonable fear and hatred stirred up by sensationalistic newspaper reporting.   The town’s black community was burned to the ground and they suffered a large number of deaths and injuries. I support Mr. Kaul’s desire to educate the public about this event.  Our nation’s history has too many examples of horrible behavior denying life and liberty to minorities and the underprivileged.
The rest of the story:  Now, it is also a fact that the state of Oklahoma originated in 1907 and had Democrat Governors until 1963. The Governor in 1921 was Democrat, James Brooks Ayers Robertson.  An article from the Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture, referring to the early years of the state legislature, “The legislature banned interracial schools at all levels. Many public facilities along with common carriers were segregated. Some 540 railroad depots in the state had to be altered to fit the new separate waiting rooms requirement, while new coaches also had to be added to the lines. Over time, legislators segregated everything from hospitals to housing to cemeteries to restaurants. In 1915 Oklahoma made national history by becoming the first state in the Union to segregate public pay telephone booths.â€.[1] Mr. Kaul, why don’t you acknowledge that the Tulsa race riot was a product of the racist history of the Democrat Party?
[1] http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/S/SE006.html
Perhaps no issue better illustrates the philosophical divide between left-wing Democrats and right-wing Republicans than the Earned Income Tax Credit. Here in Iowa a theatrical stunt a few weeks back by ultra-Liberal Iowa City Democrat Senator Joe Bolkcom put the issue front and center. In the hopes of pressuring Governor Branstad to support a huge increase in the Iowa Earned Income Tax Credit, Pleasantville resident Julie Heck was brought in to symbolize the need for this action by taking part in a press conference before then testifying in front of the Ways and Means Committee. Ms. Heck is a single mother of three who is currently receiving the Iowa Earned Income Tax credit, and on this day set about making the case that while she is glad to have it—it sure would be nice to get more of our money.