Remember These Votes!

The debt bill that our president signed today is not now, nor will be, good for our economy. In about 15 months, most of the people who voted Yea or Nay on this bill will be up for election.

You should know how they voted.

And as a service to all the blog readers, you can click below to find out how your representatives and senators voted. And of course, the president signed it.

How the House of Representatives voted

How the Senate voted

What Does "As a share of GDP" Mean?

From the top story at Foxnews.com at this hour, dealing with Standard & Poor's lowered outlook for U.S. sovereign debt:

"Both political parties now agree that it is time to begin bringing down deficits as a share of GDP," Mary Miller, assistant secretary for financial markets at the Treasury Department, said in a written statement. "We believe S&P's negative outlook underestimates the ability of America's leaders to come together to address the difficult fiscal challenges facing the nation."

"...as a share of GDP..." What does that mean to you? Let's convert the numbers (presently in the trillions) to ones we more commonly understand. Suppose the "gross domestic product" of your household—for this example, all of the income generated by all the people in the household—is $50,000 in the year 2011. Because you spend like the government, you have spent $60,000 and generated $10,000 debt this year, which is 20% of your household GDP. [This would be in addition to the many years of debt you've been racking up prior to 2011.] As the leaders of your household come together for a meeting, they all agree that annual debt consisting of 20% of household GDP—up from, say, 12% in previous years—is pretty high, and that something needs to be done about it. After all, it's getting harder to make all the credit card, car, vacation home, jet ski, timeshare, home alarm system, and charity payments to lazy neighbors simultaneously.

So here's what one of them says:

We need to rein in our debt by keeping it at the level of 20% of household GDP.

And the rest of them? They all should look at the speaker and, as politely as possible, point out how stupid that is and how utterly ineffective it is in dealing with the problem...and once the speaker understands that, they should point out that in the long-term, this will only make the problem worse.

What the speaker is implying is this: That if next year's household income rises to $60,000—a very optimistic forecast in the current economy—it will be OK to incur $12,000 (that's 20% of $60,000) more in debt, to add to all those prior years' worth of debt. For that matter, even if one of these people should recommend that the debt be limited to 12% of household GDP, it's still a bad idea; the way to get rid of debt is to reduce spending to below the level of income!

And this the federal government does not yet seem to understand. Our leaders in Washington DC need to determine what needs to be done, as soon as possible, to get the level of government spending to less than the level of government income.

If they want suggestions, I will be happy to offer them.

Welfare Queen Wants Our Money

Take a good look at the picture above. According to macon.com, this woman in the photo was unable to be one of the "lucky" people to receive a federal assistance for her heating bill, which she is holding in her hands. The article described the assistance, how it's been cut this year, and a few words with her (she's not happy) and one other fellow who was able to receive some help.

What the folks at macon.com didn't mention was that large 55-or-so-inch-TV in the background. And if you look carefully, it appears that a game console is hooked up to it.

Thanks to theblogprof for bringing this example of injustice to my attention.

The Eternal Importance of Christian Education

A friend began a facebook discussion today on the general topic of placing one's child in the government's care (read: public school, day care) for such a large portion of that child's life. She took the very sensible position that God does not give children to parents for that purpose.

This stimulated further thought in my mind for much of the rest of the day. There are the usual list of reasons why you should give your children a Christian education, such as:

• Superior academic education, compared to public schools in general
• Less dangerous environment
• Doctrines like creation and salvation are taught, not stifled

Today, however, I was on a deeper wavelength. I want to communicate on this deeper level now.

God has given me and my wife four wonderful children (my friend is anticipating her fourth's arrival within the next several months). The moment we conceived them, they became our responsibility—a profound responsibility—to rear, to discipline, to love, to train. They are not, nor ever have been, nor ever will be, the government's responsibility. In order to fulfill the God-given responsibility, there are a number of things we must do; one of these is to provide them with Christian education.

[Parenthetical: Some parents will choose to homeschool their children in order to meet this responsibility. As long as the education they provide is both thoroughly Christian and strong in academics, I have no problem with that. Others, including us, will choose to partner with a Christian school that will teach the Scriptures in all subject areas and support our family and our values as Christians. Such a Christian school needs to be both thoroughly Christian and strong in academics, too.]

The child, ultimately, will be inevitably impacted by the education he is provided. If a strong Christian education is provided, then he will be more likely to follow in the path of Christ-likeness and go on to serve God for the rest of his days on earth. He will be more likely to avoid the guilt and consequences of sin. He will probably have more joy and peace in his life, and if he marries someone else who loves and serves God and seeks to be more like Christ, he will likely have a happier marriage than most.

But more importantly, if a child is provided a Christian education—particularly at a young age—he is much more likely to accept Jesus Christ as his Savior and spend eternity in heaven. That is not something most day cares or public schools are going to encourage; indeed, the truth will most likely be stifled or ignored.

If you have children, make up your mind: Are you going to take the responsibility to provide your child with Christian education that will positively impact their lives both now and for eternity, or are you going to hand over your responsibility to the government, leaving them open to temporal misery and possibly eternal damnation?

NOTE: I certainly don't want to imply that eternal damnation is the certain fate of those who attend public school today. Please understand that my meaning is that the risk of a child turning away from God and Truth is heightened when the child is put into an environment where God's truth is maligned, ridiculed, neglected, or blasphemed. For a parent to consciously take that risk with his child's soul is inexcusable.

And on the other hand, there are certainly Christians among the many public school teachers out there, who are striving to be lights in the midst of darkness. May God bless them and give them success as they try to reach out to the students in their care.

Who I'm Voting For, Part 2

80th House District: Aric Nesbitt

There are two candidates in this six-way race that stand out to me: Aric Nesbitt and Frank Thompson. I think that both of them can be fine representatives for the people of Van Buren County.

Frank's background is business-oriented. He has been a small-business owner in our county for a long time; he's a family man (married for 42 years); he takes a good stand on the issues. I certainly won't begrudge anyone who wants to vote for him.

Aric's background is somewhat different. He is much younger; I believe he is still single. He has spent most of his working life in the political world. He also takes a good stand on the issues and shares my values. His one liability, in my book, is that he has spent most of the past decade working outside of Michigan and in DC, which is not necessarily an asset.

But Aric has one big advantage in my book, too: He has demonstrated that he will reach out to others. He has both called me personally and visited my house last Saturday (disclaimer: I think he was just working his way through my neighborhood, as opposed to seeking me out individually) and discussed the issues with me. And if you know me, you probably realize I would ask him straight questions. I liked his answers, and I like his energy.

Governor: Pete Hoekstra

As in the state House race above, I see two candidates who stand out above the rest: Pete Hoekstra and Mike Bouchard. I think either one would make a good governor for Michigan. I give Hoekstra the nod in my book.

A word on the other candidates: I have not been pleased with Rick Snyder's avoidance of taking good positions on social conservative issues. His economic ideas seem sound (something that's true for all five GOP candidates), but I can't say too much else in his favor. Mike Cox has demonstrated a penchant for "being a politician" and has already behaved badly with some of his misleading advertisements against Hoekstra. Tom George, who is from Kalamazoo and whom I know personally, has not convinced me of his fiscal conservatism, demonstrated oh-so-terribly with his tax hike vote a few years ago--a vote that helped swing the critical Senate vote to the democrats.

Bouchard has a lot going for him. His stands on the issues are solid, and his experience in Oakland County will be valuable. Pete Hoekstra, however, has demonstrated a very strong friendship with pro-family and pro-life groups, including reaching out to homeschoolers and supporting local control of public education. He also has a long record in Congress; most of it is very good.

The other races in my precinct are uncontested. Make sure you vote on August 3!

Indy 500 and Seat Belts

Yesterday, while watching the Indy 500, I was treated to a number of commercials about the "Click It or Ticket" campaign, which tried to encourage me to wear my seat belt. The annoying thing about these commercials [aside from the inherently annoying "Beep Beep" theme] is that they were likely paid for by my tax dollars, spent by a government which has no extra money.

After the race, Dario Franchitti (the winner), his wife, his car owner, two others I didn't identify, and a driver all piled into a Corvette and took a victory lap around the 2.5-mile track.

For those who haven't yet had the thought: A Corvette only has two seat belts.

But at least they were seated. Take a look at this video of Helio Castroneves's victory lap a year ago:

Thanks to theblogprof for the link!

Who Was Obama's 2nd Biggest Donor in the Presidential Campaign?

The politically naive may be surprised, but when we realize all the favors the Obama administration has done for this company, it does make a lot of sense.

Some may say, "But his administration is threatening to fine them a lot of money!" Whatever. I think it was mostly hot air and PR for the financial "reform" Obama wants. The fine wouldn't hurt them all that much anyway.

Who is this donor? Click here to learn.

Thoughts From the IRS Commissioner

In an unusual (and brief) fit of boredom, I read an e-mail I received from the IRS (Note: As a tax preparer, I get e-mails regularly. I'm on their list. Nothing more). It included the prepared remarks of IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman at the National Press Club yesterday. You can read the whole thing here, if you are so minded. Here are a few tasty excerpts:

You also see police officers and guards keeping a close watch over their safety… park rangers giving directions or explaining a bit of history…landscapers keeping the City beautiful…and teachers leading and educating their students.

And they have one thing in common. They’re all public servants, who are working to serve our fellow citizens, families, neighbors and friends.

However, there are other public servants you probably won’t see, including thousands of IRS employees who right now are answering taxpayer questions over the phones, processing returns, issuing refunds and helping taxpayers struggling through these tough economic times.

And that’s what I want to talk about today: public servants and public service…

The first of the big refundable tax credits – the Earned Income Tax Credit – was enacted in 1975, and it was official: The tax system and the IRS were now viewed by policymakers as an efficient distribution system for societal benefits, not just the mechanism to raise the funds to run the government.

Let me conclude with this thought. I firmly believe that the spirit of public service is part of who we are as IRS employees.

But the men and women of the IRS are often under-appreciated public servants. At its core, we are an agency of professionals working to serve the hardworking taxpayers of this country: processing returns, sending out refunds, answering questions on the phone, and trying to help people navigate a complicated tax system.

I'll let you draw your own conclusions for now.

A Math Teacher's Thoughts on the Census

Today is April 1, 2010, so I dutifully filled out my census form today and will mail it in the morning. Despite what the media and the U.S. Census Bureau tell me, I don't think I need to fill it out ahead of the official day—indeed, if some tragedy had befallen my family, say, two days ago, and I had already mailed in my form, it could have been inaccurate.

Two things really rub me the wrong way about the Census this year.

1. The Cost. It's outrageous. According to the NBC News (note: credibility warning), the U.S. Census Bureau is spending $14,000,000,000 for the decennial count. Think about this: That works out to about $45.60 per person (if we assume 307,000,000 people will be counted). That means the government is spending $273.60 just to count my family of six!

The commercials and advertising are excessive. The reminders that the census helps determine which communities most heavily contribute to future budget deficits add to the annoyance.

We can only imagine what healthcare will look like. And that happens more than once a decade.

2. The ridiculous efforts "to count everyone," while also ignoring whether those counted belong in this country at the moment, while assuring those counted that nothing "bad" will happen to them because the census data is confidential. This will give lopsided representation to those states with lots of illegal, countable immigrants, while denying it to states which have few. This is inconsistent with the intent of the Constitution and the census.

People who are not legally in this country, and people who are not citizens, should not be counted for the purposes of determining representation. And really, that's the purpose of the census, isn't it? Isn't it??

From irs.gov....

When you make money doing other people's tax returns and read information from the IRS, sometimes you encounter facts like these [data is the most recent available]:

Individual income tax returns reporting a tax liability in 2007 faced an average tax rate of 13.8 percent, the same as in 2006. Taxpayers with AGI of at least $410,096, the top 1 percent of taxpayers, accounted for 22.8 percent of AGI in 2007, an increase of 0.8 percentage points. These taxpayers accounted for 40.4 percent of total income tax reported in 2007, an increase from 39.9 percent in the previous year.

Points to note:

1. "reporting a tax liability" means that all those people who did not make enough money to owe the IRS are eliminated from the statistic. In other words, their "taxable income" was zero.

2. Does it bother you that 1% of the taxpayers are paying 40.4% of all the income taxes? On the other end, over 40% of "taxpayers" are paying no income taxes...and in many cases, claiming credits, such as the Earned Income Credit, that provide them with robust refunds anyway.

What Might Universal Healthcare Look Like? Issue #2

It would be instructive for all of us to consider what universal healthcare would look like in a practical sense. Various bloggers and others have pointed to actual examples in Canada, Britain, and various other countries.

I would argue that we are already seeing elements of it in the United States. I wrote on this topic once already, concerning the availability of vaccines.

Now we learn that a task force at the Department of Health and Human Services (yes, your taxpayer dollars at work...or perhaps, your grandkids' taxpayer dollars at work) recommends against women having regular mammograms before the age of 50. Not simply stating that they are not as important as once thought, mind you—they are recommending against them.

The more cynical among us will consider the future under such task forces. Here's what I envision if universal healthcare becomes a reality.

Women reaching the age of 40 will continue to request mammograms; indeed, some of their doctors will want them to get mammograms due to family histories, medical problems, or other reasons. "Task forces" will decide who gets mammograms. Age and other limitations will be summarily enforced; those who simply "want to check," or who "want peace of mind," or who "felt something suspicious" will likely either be at the end of the line or removed from it. Those who receive mammograms will have to wait for them; women who are found to have cancer will not be able to receive treatment as early for this reason...and consequently, survival rates will decline.

Of course, those who are well-connected or who learn how to game the system will be able to receive healthcare services in a more prompt fashion. Think Soviet Union, 1970's.

My wife is not too far away from this stage of life; I certainly don't want her to face that in the future.

National Debt Reaches $12 TRILLION Dollars

Yes, today the national debt is believed to have reached $12,000,000,000,000.00. According to the twitter site @NationalDebt, it increased by a mere $40 billion dollars YESTERDAY.

This is an astonishing amount of money. Let's break it down into more manageable pieces.

For some time now I have had a "National Debt Clock" at the bottom of this blog. (Scroll down and enjoy those rapidly increasing numbers at your leisure.) Given the estimated U.S. population of 307,710,000, that averages out to about $39,100 for every man, woman, and child. My family of six? Our share of that is $234,600. Ouch.

If this debt stopped growing immediately and were paid off at a rate of $1,000,000 per day, without any interest, it would be paid off in the year 34,863 A.D. At $1,000,000,000 per day, it would still take 33 years.

Our current penny weighs 2.5 grams. How much would $12 trillion in pennies weigh? 30 million metric tons!

Another Picture of What Universal Healthcare Might Look Like

According to a story broken by Business Week earlier this week, a number of large, well-known companies, such as Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, have received quantities of the H1N1 vaccine to provide to their employees who belong to high-risk groups, as defined by the federal government.

It should be noted that, at this time, it appears that these companies participated in the acquisition process in a perfectly legal manner, and are bound to distribute the vaccine only to those with the greatest need. In other words, they have done nothing wrong.

Of course, this does nothing to quell the criticism and the rumor-mongering that these companies have somehow gamed the system to garner more benefits than they are due. When I first heard about this on the Today show yesterday morning, you would have thought the mob was involved.

This story is instructive, however, in one way: It gives us a glimpse into what the world of government-run healthcare might look like. There will be times when the demand for a healthcare supply or service will exceed the demand. Some will obtain the supply or service; others, for whatever reason, will not. Those who are "in the know" or have connections will be more likely to receive it; others will not. Furthermore, it is likely that some will not only be "in the know" but will be able to circumvent whatever bureaucratic-nightmare procurement process will be in place.

You may not be near the front of the line. You may not even be told where the line is. You may see others obtain healthcare while you or your loved ones do not. You may not be able to do anything about it.

Americans will respond to this predictably: Some will complain; others will establish a "black market" (as it will inevitably be called by some) to provide healthcare and related supplies outside of the government's bureaucratic system. Some will make use of this market.

And those of you my age and older will start to wonder how similar this is to the Soviet Union of the 1970's and 1980's.

Healthcare, Democrat-style. Just a peek into your future.

If the H1N1 Vaccine Is Such a Big Problem...

...what on earth do you think it will look like when the government is in charge of nearly all of your healthcare?

My wife and I have been thoroughly disgusted when we watch the news and see paranoid, physically healthy people act desperate to get the H1N1 flu shot for themselves and their healthy children. (It doesn't help that the news media exploit and perpetuate this paranoia.) The local news crew inevitably finds some poor soul who wasn't close enough to the front of the line to receive her vaccine, and show her pouring out her emotions (anger, sorrow, bitterness, desperation; tears are often present) regarding the shortfall for the 6:00 broadcast.

Such broadcasts usually contain obligatory mentions of the government not being able to deliver the promised number of dosages of the flu shots.

I do not intend to mock those who, having sought the advice of a wise doctor, are attempting to receive something which is medically important or necessary. If your doctor feels that you should get a flu shot this year, far be it from me to convince you otherwise.

What I do intend to mock, however, is the notion that the government can provide for your health needs. Vaccinations are among the more routine elements of healthcare. My children have been dutifully getting theirs at various ages for years.

Yet, here we see that the government cannot even "make happen" the delivery of millions of flu shots, despite months of planning! If we can't count on the government to deliver on a fairly simple promise of flu shot delivery with months of preparation—and mind you, you'd be ill-advised to count on the government for this—how well should we anticipate government delivery of significant and life-saving healthcare?

In other words, if they can't even get flu shots done right, why should we have any confidence in the government's ability to deliver more critical healthcare to its citizens?

Kudos to blogprof for the link; check out his own personal story of how the vaccination quest went!

What's Up With a 90% Pay Cut?

Today we learn from foxnews.com (and others):

The Treasury Department is expected to formally announce in the next few days a plan to slash annual salaries by about 90 percent from last year for the 25 highest-paid executives at the seven companies that received the most from the Wall Street bailout. Total compensation for the top executives at the firms would decline, on average, by about 50 percent.

The seven affected companies are: Bank of America, American International Group, Citigroup, General Motors, GMAC, Chrysler and Chrysler Financial.

Smaller companies and those that have repaid the bailout money, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., are not affected.

On the one hand, it can be argued that since these companies have essentially sold (or leased, or mortgaged, or whatever term you prefer) their souls for government bailout money, and since "the borrower is servant to the lender," that the government is perfectly entitled to keep these companies' executives' pay at whatever level it sees fit.

On the other hand, it can be argued that government interference in the compensation of law-abiding company employees is a gross violation of civil and corporate rights, and sets a horrific precedent for future government interference.

So which side of the argument is correct? I would suggest that both sides are correct.

How is that so? This entire argument is based on a false premise: The idea that government should ever have "bailed out" the aforementioned companies in the first place. Whenever the government gets involved in an area that is beyond its constitutional boundaries or that interferes with the God-given rights of its citizens, it spawns a new set of issues...issues which generally have no simple means of resolution.

American citizens should be angered both by the arrogance of corporations to lavish wealth on executives who are taking their money while running these corporations into the ground, and also on the government, for interfering in the process. Their greatest anger should be directed toward the fact that we ever got here in the first place.

Hiding Money Offshore? Be Warned!

As a professional tax preparer for part of the year, I have signed up for the IRS e-mails that are put out several times a week. This one I received struck me as rather interesting.

Context of the e-mail: In its never-ending quest to see that all income taxes are, in fact, collected, the IRS will soon be "cracking down" with greater penalties for those who are caught hiding money in foreign ["offshore"] bank accounts.

The e-mail is copied below. It is also found on the IRS website here. Consider this a sort of public service announcement.

WASHINGTON ─ The Internal Revenue Service today announced a one-time extension of the deadline for special voluntary disclosures by taxpayers with unreported income from hidden offshore accounts. These taxpayers now have until Oct. 15, 2009.

Under special provisions issued in March, taxpayers with these hidden accounts originally had until Sept. 23, 2009 to come forward. Those taxpayers who do not voluntarily disclose their hidden accounts by the new deadline face much harsher civil penalties, where applicable, and possible criminal prosecution.

IRS officials decided to extend this deadline after receiving repeated requests from tax practitioners and attorneys around the country following an influx of taxpayer requests. By extending the deadline for a short period of time, the IRS is providing relief for those taxpayers who had intended to come forward prior to the deadline, but faced logistical and administrative challenges in meeting it. The extension will allow tax preparers and attorneys the necessary time to interview and advise their backlog of taxpayers with these hidden accounts, and prepare the necessary paperwork to qualify for the special penalty provisions.

The IRS also announced that there will be no further extensions.

Michiganders (and certain others) About To Be Denied Proper Representation in Census

According to this wsj.com article, the upcoming 2010 Census will, like the three preceding it, be using a count of all persons physically present in the country to determine apportionment in Congress for the upcoming decade—including persons here illegally. The result of this will be to give disproportionately higher numbers of representatives to those states which have disproportionately higher numbers of illegal aliens.

Who wins and who loses under this scenario?

Winners: California is projected to have nine additional representatives in Congress, compared to the results if a count of only legal, permanent residents was done. Texas would get four additional representatives. Depending on the actual counts, several other states could pick up an additional seat, including Florida, Illinois, Nevada, New York, and New Jersey.

Losers: Several states right now are looking at the possibility of losing a Congressional seat regardless of this issue, but states at risk include Michigan, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Ohio could lose a second seat if illegal immigrants are counted. New York and New Jersey stand to lose a seat under a proper count, but could gain it back if illegal immigrants are counted.

What should we do?

For Michiganders, this is very much a bi-partisan issue. Our entire congressional delegation in D.C. should demand that the census only count legal, permanent residents of the country; legislation should be introduced to make this happen. Furthermore, co-sponsors should sprout up like weeds from such places as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and other states which either stand to lose a seat(s) or which will likely be unaffected regardless of the specific count.

We need to contact our representatives, regardless of their party, and demand action on this front. As Cameron Brown said in a MIRS interview recently, "If people can't have confidence in our election process, in our election system, they will not have confidence in government, period."

We have the greatest governmental system on the planet, and it is in the interests of all citizens to keep it healthy and honest. Eternal vigilance is required.

Michigan is 41st in "Top States for Business"...Why?

In a survey reported by NBC on its Nightly News broadcast this evening, and found here at the cnbc.com website, Virginia and Texas finished as the top two states in the nation for business, based on an analysis of the following ten factors (Michigan's 50-state rank in parentheses):

Cost of Doing Business (31)
Workforce (39)
Quality of Life (40)
Economy (45)
Transportation (20)
Technology & Innovation (7)
Education (34)
Business Friendliness (39)
Access to Capital (10)
Cost of Living (23)

I decided to order these categories in this manner: From those which the government is most obligated to have a role in, to those which the government should least be involved in. Here's what I got* (Michigan rankings still in parentheses):

Economy (45)
Business Friendliness (39)
Cost of Doing Business (31)
Transportation (20)
Education (34)
Workforce (39)
Cost of Living (23)
Quality of Life (40)
Access to Capital (10)
Technology & Innovation (7)

*The ranking is my own subjective interpretation, and I won't be at all offended if you would choose to engage in a little reordering of your own. The data sources are not explicitly noted and consequently, I'm not certain precisely how these rankings were obtained or what precisely they measure...although they seem reasonable.

Do you notice a trend here? If the categories were simply numbered from 1 to 10 (using my order) and a linear correlation were completed, it would be -0.67, implying that the more government involvement, in general, the lower the rating. [Disclaimer: Rigorous statistical analysis would demand more work on my part. This is only an estimate from an estimate.]

Observations, beginning at the top of my list:

The government is inescapably tied to the economy by its policies related to taxation, spending, and legal regulation of economic activity. This is clearly tied to business friendliness and the cost of doing business. Michigan is doing poorly in these categories.

Government—especially at the state level—has responsibilities for transportation (roads, airports, other infrastructure) and for public education. In this survey, however, I suspect that "education" measures the attainments of the populace, which is a collective measure of choices people make. That is why transportation comes ahead of education in my list.

The workforce metric is probably tied to the education metric to some degree, as the overall measure of a workforce is in a large degree tied to its level of education. A large manufacturing sector generally doesn't rate well in this kind of metric.

Cost of living is tied to a variety of factors beyond government, including such things as geography, natural resources, and whether an area is rural or urban.

Quality of life, in my book, is founded primarily on things spiritual and familial—areas which are properly outside the scope of government. Yet, economic issues impact quality of life, so the government has a tangential effect on this. (And if we get Obamacare, it will be a lot more than tangential!)

Access to capital and Technology & Innovation are free-market qualities which, aside from policing illegalities, are usually outside the proper realm of government. Michigan was a top-ten state in both of these areas...and only in these areas.

Notice, by the way, which two categories Michigan finished best in. There is still hope...if we get active and vote!

How did Ohio do? Some interesting observations here.

Q&A with Sen. Tom George (R-20th District)

Sen. Tom George is currently serving his second term in the Michigan Senate and is a candidate for governor in next year's election. He is a medical doctor and a history buff. He recently and graciously agreed to answer some questions related to his campaign to become Michigan's next Republican governor.

1. Would you, during the campaign, be willing to sign a pledge indicating that you would not raise taxes? If not, are there specific taxes you would be willing to raise, under certain circumstances?

No, I will not sign a pledge to not raise taxes as I have always made it a policy and practice to not sign any kind of pledge. I believe it would be imprudent of a gubernatorial candidate to take such a pledge.

2. Being a doctor certainly gives you more insight into the healthcare industry than most of us have, and being a senator gives you more insight into the workings of government than most of us have. What other qualities do you think you have that prepare you to become Michigan's next governor?

Having maintained an active career outside of the legislature is an advantage that no other candidate can claim. I continue to work at the hospital, including some nights and weekends when the legislature is not in session. This puts me in touch with the many challenges that people are facing on a regular basis. It also gives me special insight into the strengths and weaknesses of our health care system.

Fixing health care is one of the keys to fixing Michigan’s economy and turning our state around. One of the lessons my medical practice has taught me is that the health of a population and subsequent health care costs largely reflect health behaviors. With health care costs now the single largest expense in the state budget, the state’s ability to lure jobs, fix its infrastructure, and provide tax cuts will in part depend on the next governor’s ability to improve the health behavior of our citizens.

Having legislative experience is also important as fixing Michigan will require using the legislative process. Governor Engler was a skilled legislator and this helped make him an effective governor. In contrast, Governor Granholm’s lack of legislative experience has at times been apparent.

Outside of the legislature, I have provided volunteer service to several organizations. These experiences enhance my credentials. For example, in 2008, I co-chaired MI-Cause, the statewide coalition which formed to oppose last fall’s embryo research ballot proposal. I have served as president of the Historical Society of Michigan, a statewide non-profit group founded in 1828 to promote and preserve the history of our state. In 1998 I chaired the Kalamazoo Coalition for Appropriate and Compassionate Care, a group which formed to oppose the assisted-suicide ballot proposal.

As a physician, I served as a medical volunteer in Tanzania, Africa, and on the Caribbean Island of St. Lucia. For 24 years, I have been a member of Michigan State University’s College of Human Medicine’s volunteer faculty. I have also published articles in both medical journals and history magazines.

On a personal note, I have been married to my wife, Sandy for almost 30 years and we have three children.

Continuing to hold a part-time job while serving in the legislature, demonstrating leadership, serving as a volunteer, and maintaining one’s marriage vows are all important indicators of character which may be important to voters in the gubernatorial race.

3. You will no doubt be reminded during the campaign about your vote on the early morning of 10/1/07 to raise taxes. In retrospect, do you regret that vote, or do you feel that it was necessary? Why?

I do not regret my 2007 vote to raise the state income tax.

It should be noted that in 2007, I voted for a billion dollars in spending cuts as well as voting to raise the state income tax from 3.9 to 4.35%. Together this combination would have been sufficient to balance the budget. Unlike many of my colleagues, I actually voted for a package of bills that taken together would have produced a balanced budget without the need for the adoption of Governor Granholm’s service tax, which I opposed, and which was later converted, to the business tax surcharge.

My vote helped end a government shutdown, and create a balanced budget, which is one of my constitutional duties. Given the circumstances, it was the prudent action to take. (It also should be noted that during nine of the twelve years that Governor Engler was in office, the income tax was greater than its current rate of 4.35%.)

4. You are known to be a history buff. Can you think of any historical parallels in U.S. History to the current state of affairs in Michigan?

There have been several instances of economic crises in Michigan’s past. Boom and bust cycles have been caused by land speculation, canal building boondoggles, timber industry cycles, war, and the great depression. On more than one occasion economic turmoil has contributed to a call for a constitutional convention. The Constitutional Convention of 1961-2, in part, stemmed from state budget problems in the late 1950’s.

Applying the lessons of the past to today would suggest that though Republicans may not support the call for a constitutional convention which will appear on the 2010 ballot, we should be prepared in the event it is adopted.

5. Looking back over your time in the legislature, of what achievements are you the most pleased?

I represent a senate district that, like Michigan as a whole, is about 53% Democratic. My district has voted for Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama and Jennifer Granholm. Yet, I am a conservative, pro-life Republican and have managed to win elections repeatedly there. I am now serving in my ninth year in the legislature. I believe I have been able to represent my district ably because I am a good listener, and because I have found a way to apply Republican principles to the problems of the day in a constructive manner. In a similar fashion, for a Republican to win the governor’s race in 2010, we must have a candidate with the right temperament and skills -- a candidate who knows how to win; a candidate who knows how to use Republican solutions to fix our state.

Thank you, Senator George!

Canadians Want Private Health Care? Really?

According to this foxnews.com article (which most of us could have seen coming, in form if not exact date), "Private for-profit clinics are a booming business in Canada -- a country often touted as a successful example of a universal health system."

The reasons are simple and predictable: The health care system of Canada forces long waits and consists of substandard care, by American standards. Canadians want the same quality and promptness of health care that we Americans have come to enjoy! They'd rather pay out of pocket to get their health concerns promptly dealt with than wait and suffer. Go figure!

Canadian health care implementation is managed by the different provinces, and not all of them have allowed private for-profit health clinics. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled in a 2005 Quebec case that patients whose wait times were exceptionally long could seek private treatment and pay for it out of their own pockets.

Do you like prompt, quality heath care? Then don't let the government control it!