Saturday, December 15, 2012

Gun Control Isn’t The Answer. Here’s Why

From Dana Loesch




2ndamendment
Friday was a day of horror, heartbreak, and prayer. Despite this, some of our progressive brethren couldn’t resist using the tragedy to make a case for risking lives by preventing families a means of self-protection via their Second Amendment rights. Let us have a frank discussion: Progressives believe that our Second Amendment rights are what perpetuated the horrific massacre in Sandy Hook. They believe that if firearm ownership was illegal then Adam Lanza wouldn’t have murdered. They say that Americans shouldn’t be able to own “assault weapons,” as they call them.
Where have these mass tragedies occurred? Virginia Tech. Aurora, Colorado. Schools, the majority of them. What do these locations have in common? They are designated “gun-free” zones. Are progressives unable to recognize that their gun control was already in place? Guns were already forbidden? The only solution left is “confiscation,” which goes beyond what they imply by “control.” I would like to hear it explained how a gun-free school zone, in a state with some of the most stringent gun control laws in the country, would have prevented the actions of a man whose intent was not following the law that day?
One of the interesting characteristics of mass shootings is that they generally occur in places where firearms are banned: malls, schools, etc. That was the finding of a famous 1999 study by John Lott of the University of Maryland and William Landes of the University of Chicago, and it appears to have been borne out by experience since then as well.
What did recent shooters like Adam Lanza, Jared Lee Loughner, and James Holmes have in common? They were disturbed young men that no law could deter from their intended destruction. Why were the warning signs ignored? All of these men were clearly troubled, all three were on medication. Loughner’s warning signs went ignored. We don’t yet know if Lanza’s family knew he was experiencing problems or if they witnessedwarning signs. Holmes was severely medicated and apparently abused his regimen.
Lanza could not have legally obtained the firearms he used because it is illegal in Connecticut to purchase or possess a firearm under the age of twenty-one. Lanza was twenty. You must have a permit to purchase and carry a handgun in CT and pass a background check to merit a handgun eligibility certificate. He stole his mother’s firearms. That is not a failure of gun laws, it is a failure of personal responsibility. What will more, redundant laws do when the laws already in effect fail to stop a criminal — who, by the very definition of the word, has no intention of following the law anyway? More laws for criminals to not follow? Chicago’s homicides have exceed 436 this year, beating last year’s figures. Pretty high for a state which previously banned guns, right? I’d like for the left to explain how it is people are dying from gun shots in Chicago when the city explicitly banned them? (The ban was overturned by a court of appeals this week but has not yet been implemented; the city has 180 days from the ruling to apply). Does the left expect criminals and mad men who already don’t follow the laws on the books to suddenly become law-abiding citizens because progressives pass new anti-gun laws? I would like to know where the absence of outrage is from the left: many Sandy Hooks take place every month in Chicago, the progressive model for gun control.
Can the left explain how responsible practitioners of the Second Amendment are liable for the warning signs missed by Lanza’s family and professionals around him? Is the left arguing that Adam Lanza wouldn’t have shot innocents had he no mental issues? A law-abiding citizen plus a firearm does not a mad gunman make.Sometimes evil doesn’t even need firearms. Sometimes it’s textbook terrorism.
And what of the argument from the left that the protection should be left to the police? Unfortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. Castle Rock vs Gonzales was a case involving a mother who sued Castle Rock, Colorado and a number of police officers for failing to protect her and her children from her estranged husband:
… the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that Gonzales had no substantive due process claim, but reversed with regard to the procedural due process claim. The court found that mandatory language in the Colorado statute regarding restraining orders created an entitlement for Gonzales to receive protective services from the police, and that she stated a claim for deprivation of procedural due process because of the failure of the police officers to arrest, or even to attempt to arrest, her husband pursuant to the order.
The Supreme Court ruled against Gonzales 7-2. If an intruder has broken into your home are you going to pray that they leave your family alone and simply call 9-1-1 with the hopes that law enforcement will save you? How long will you have before police arrive at your home, office, wherever? In Atlanta, it’s 11 minutes. Nine minutes in Nashville. Quite a lot can happen in that span of time. And we know from the Supreme Court ruling that there isn’t a legal obligation for anyone else to protect your life. Are you OK with those odds? You may be, but I’m not, and I will resist the urge of anyone whose goal is to erode my right to protect myself and my family.
I am not willing to disarm the helpless and punish those who are law-abiding. They are the ones who fall victim to those who chose to flout the law. Guns are neither good nor bad. Motive is. Intent is. Character is. Inanimate objects have no such qualities. Let’s not risk more lives by pretending that “gun control” works.
Some thoughts:
Between 2008 and 2009, the FBI’s preliminary numbers indicate that murders fell nationally by 10 percent and by about 8 percent in cities that have between 500,000 and 999,999 people. Washington’s population is about 590,000. During that same period of time, murders in the District fell by an astounding 25 percent, dropping from 186 to 140. The city only started allowing its citizens to own handguns for defense again in late 2008.

A three-year prison term for violating a gun-free zone represents a real penalty for a law-abiding citizen. Adding three years to a criminal’s sentence when he is probably already going to face multiple death penalties or life sentences for a murderous rampage is probably not going to be the penalty that stops the criminal from committing his crime.
[...]
Examining all the multiple-victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1999 shows that on average, states that adopt right-to-carry laws experience a 60% drop in the rates at which the attacks occur, and a 78% drop in the rates at which people are killed or injured from such attacks.

Many have argued that it is the increased availability of firearms that has led to increased gun homicides, that the use of guns in the commission of violent crimes increases the likelihood of injury and lethality, or that decreased availability reduces homicide.

Although many of these positions seem intuitively obvious and have shaped arguments for increased control and restrictions on firearm availability and access, the
overall prevalence of handgun use in the commission of all violent crimes is relatively low. A handgun was used in approximately 9 percent of all violent offenses.

The NSC estimates that in 1995, firearm accidents accounted for 1.5% of fatal accidents. Larger percentages of fatal accidents were accounted for by motor vehicle accidents (47%), falls (13.5%), poisonings (11.4%), drowning (4.8%), fires (4.4%), and choking on an ingested object (3.0%).
The Florida Model [my emphasis]:
“Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws severely limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense”. (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1992)

The total Violent Crime Rate is 26% higher in the restrictive states (798.3 per 100,000 pop.) than in the less restrictive states (631.6 per 100,000).

The Homicide Rate is 49% higher in the restrictive states (10.1 per 100,000) than in the states with less restrictive CCW laws (6.8 per 100,000).

The Robbery Rate is 58% higher in the restrictive states (289.7 per 100,000) than in the less restrictive states (183.1 per 100,000).

The Aggravated Assault Rate is 15% higher in the restrictive states (455.9 per 100,000) than in the less restrictive states (398.3 per 100,000).

Using FBI data (1992), homicide trends in the 17 states with less restrictive CCW laws compare favorably against national trends, and almost all CCW permittees are law-abiding.

Since adopting CCW (1987), Florida’s homicide rate has fallen 21% while the U.S. rate has risen 12%. From start-up 10/1/87 – 2/28/94 (over 6 years) Florida issued 204,108 permits; only 17 (0.008%) were revoked because permittees later committed crimes (not necessarily violent) in which guns were present (not necessarily used).

Of 14,000 CCW licensees in Oregon, only 4 (0.03%) were convicted of the criminal (not necessarily violent) use or possession of a firearm.

Americans use firearms for self-defense more than 2.1 million times annually.

By contrast, there are about 579,000 violent crimes committed annually with firearms of all types. Seventy percent of violent crimes are committed by 7% of criminals, including repeat offenders, many of whom the courts place on probation after conviction, and felons that are paroled before serving their full time behind bars.

Two-thirds of self-protective firearms uses are with handguns.

99.9% of self-defense firearms uses do not result in fatal shootings of criminals, an important factor ignored in certain “studies” that are used to claim that guns are more often misused than used for self-protection.
We hear the sad statistics, but what about the good ones? The ones where intruders are fended off by responsible gun owners?
Here is one of many repositories full of news stories detailing how firearms save lives.
Remember what I said about police wait times? This woman was on the phone for ten minutes. She had to pull the trigger when the intruder broke into her home after her. The woman is upset after firing because she fears she may have hurt him — even though she feared for her life. That’s compassion. Does that sound like the caricature of an out-of-control, gun wielding “RWNJ” to you?
I’ll also add this: it would be something if the people who cared about the children senselessly lost in the Sandy Hook massacre were as equally opposed to the senseless slaughter of innocent life that takes place every day in abortion clinics around the country. Gun control won’t solve a massive erosion of values. We need soul control. We need values control.
Lastly, let’s compare quotes.
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.” – Adolf Hitler
Additionally: Gun laws in Nazi Germany.
”What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?” – Thomas Jefferson

”Congress by the power of taxation, by that of raising an army, and by their control over the militia, have the sword in one hand and the purse in the other. Shall we be safe without either? Let him candidly tell me, where and when did freedom exist, when the sword and purse were given up from the people?” – Patrick Henry
While praying for the families who lost these precious innocents, it is important that we do not double-down on senselessness. No more tragedies.
Posted by Eddie at Saturday, December 15, 2012 0 comments

Thursday, December 13, 2012

SENATE DEMOCRATS URGE UNDOING OF OBAMACARE

From Breitbart.com


by DR. SUSAN BERRY 12 Dec 2012 

Many powerful Democrats, even some of the most liberal among them, are supporting what amounts to adismantling of President Obama’s signature health care law. 

Using “Republican” language to make their case, these Democrats are attempting to repeal some of the funding mechanisms as well as the cost-containment measures that were purportedly inherent in the law.
With some of their most influential constituent groups facing onerous tax increases that are slated to help fund the law’s mandates and regulations, Senators like Al Franken (D-MN), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Patty Murray (D-WA), John Kerry (D-MA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and others -- all of whom voted in favor of the law -- are aiming to delay or outright repeal parts of ObamaCare.
A top Senate staffer explained (after ObamaCare passed), “This is a coverage bill, not a cost reduction bill.” David Bowen, who helped to craft the legislation, said that Senate Democrats had planned to follow in the path of Massachusetts’ RomneyCare plan by providing insurance coverage first, “knowing that that would bring on a cost battle second.”
In fact, RomneyCare’s mandates and subsidies caused health care costs to dramatically increase in the Bay state, leading the current governor and state legislature to exertnever-before-seen controls on insurers and health care providers as they also raised taxes.
Not surprisingly, as Senate Democrats have gotten a look at what exactly is in ObamaCare, the parts of the law that were intended to control costs have gradually been stripped from the legislation.
Democrats first repealed the CLASS Act, the long-term care insurance provision of the law, which they realized would work against its intended goal of reducing the deficit. Similarly, they repealed another supposed “deficit reducer,” the “1099 provision,” that would have forced burdensome paperwork upon small businesses for the sake of discovering more “taxable” transactions.
Now, Minnesota’s two Democrat Senators, Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar, are using “Republican” terminology to delay the 2.3% medical device tax scheduled to take effect on January 1st. For these Senators, the tax, which is supposed to raise $28 billion over the next decade to fund the law, is now a “job-killing tax” that will not only cost jobs but make it more difficult for American medical device manufacturers to be competitive and innovative.
It turns out Senators Franken and Klobuchar have been enlightened of these facts by medical device companies in their home state of Minnesota; they've joined 16 other Democrat Senators who now share the same view. In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, these Senators have asked for a delay in the medical device tax, but they are actually aiming for a full repeal of this part of the law.
The delay/repeal bug appears to have bitten members of the health care industry as well, including some doctors, hospitals, and drug companies who originally supported ObamaCare because of the fact that it is chock full of subsidies for many of these health care sectors. 
However, the Independent Payment Advisory Panel (IPAB), the board of unelected officials that will determine which medical treatments and procedures are too costly for some patients, is supposed to impose cost controls on federal medical spending. 
Threatened by these cost-containment provisions, these members of the health care industry are now intent on eliminating this panel, again using “Republican” terminology, like, “The AMA will work to stop the IPAB from causing this type of double-jeopardy situation for physicians and compromising access to care for seniors and baby-boomers.”
It appears many of the groups that originally supported ObamaCare want to be able to have their cake and eat it, too, and Senate Democrats seem poised to allow them to do just that. The question is, without these sources of funding for all the ObamaCare mandates, and without cost-containment, as intrinsically horrific as mechanisms like the IPAB may be, how will the law be implemented at all?
Posted by Eddie at Thursday, December 13, 2012 0 comments

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

FED PROJECTS HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT FOR NEXT 3 YEARS

From AP

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Federal Reserve projects the unemployment rate will stay elevated until late 2015, suggesting it will keep short-term interest rates low for the next three years.


The latest economic forecasts released Wednesday after the Fed's final meeting of the year were little changed from September. But they coincided with a new communication strategy announced by the Fed that links future interest rate hikes with unemployment below 6.5 percent.


The unemployment rate was 7.7 percent in November.

The central bank said that it expects economic growth to improve next year but that it will be no stronger than 3 percent. Growth could increase to 3.5 percent in 2014 and 3.7 percent in 2015.
Unemployment will fall no lower than 7.4 percent next year and 6.8 percent by the end of 2014, the Fed projects. The earliest the Fed sees unemployment dropping below 6.5 percent is the end of 2015.
The Fed said it plans to keep its key short-term interest rate near zero as long as unemployment remains above 6.5 percent and inflation is expected to stay below 2.5 percent.

The latest forecast projects inflation will stay at or below 2 percent for the next three years. That gives the Fed more leeway to pursue aggressive stimulus measures.

In an effort to drive the unemployment rate lower, the Fed said after its meeting that it will spend a total of $85 billion a month to sustain an aggressive drive to keep long-term interest rates low. The goal is to encourage more borrowing and spending, which drives economic growth.

The Fed said it will continue buying bonds until the job market shows substantial improvement.
The projections made no mention of the "fiscal cliff," the combination of tax increases and spending cuts that are set to kick next month and threaten to push the economy back into a recession. But the modest growth and gradually lower unemployment next year suggest the Fed is assuming President Barack Obama and Republican lawmakers will reach a budget deal before then to avoid the cliff.
Bernanke has warned that the Fed does not have the tools to offset the damage to the economy if it goes over the cliff.

At the same time, Bernanke has said that if an agreement can be reached that addresses the nation's long-term budget challenges without slowing the recovery in the short term, next year could be "a very good one for the American economy."

Fear of higher taxes has yet to slow hiring. Employers added 146,000 jobs last month, the government said last week. That's about the same as the average monthly gain of 150,000 in the past year.

The unemployment rate fell to a four-year low of 7.7 percent last month from 7.9 percent in October. But the decline was mostly because more people without jobs gave up looking for work. The government only counts people as unemployed if they are actively searching.

The economy grew at solid 2.7 percent annual rate in the July-September quarter, more than double the 1.3 percent rate in the April-June quarter. But many analysts believe worries about the fiscal cliff are contributing to slower growth in the current October-December quarter below 2 percent.
Posted by Eddie at Wednesday, December 12, 2012 0 comments

Federal Reserve to spend $45B a month to buy bonds, links rate hike to 6.5 pct. unemployment

From The Washington Post


Federal Reserve to spend $45B a month to buy bonds, links rate hike to 6.5 pct. unemployment

By Associated Press, Published: December 11 | Updated: Wednesday, December 12, 5:31 PM

WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve said Wednesday that it plans to keep interest rates ultra-low even after unemployment falls close to a normal level — which it thinks could take three more years.
As long as expected inflation remains tame, the Fed said it could keep its key short-term rate near zero even after unemployment falls below 6.5 percent. Unemployment is now 7.7 percent.
For the first time, the Fed is making clear to investors and consumers that it will link its actions to specific economic markers. Previously the Fed had said only that it expects to keep the rate low until at least mid-2015.
Analysts said the Fed’s new guidance will make it easier for companies, investors and consumers to make financial decisions because they will have a clearer grasp of when borrowing costs will begin to rise.
“This approach is superior” to setting a timetable for a possible rate increase, Chairman Ben Bernanke said at a news conference after the Fed held a two-day policy meeting and issued a statement. “It is more transparent and will allow the markets to respond quickly and promptly to changes” in the Fed’s economic outlook.
Though the Fed’s low interest-rate policies are intended to boost borrowing, spending and stock prices, they also hurt millions of retirees and others who depend on income from savings.
Bernanke made clear that even after unemployment falls below 6.5 percent, the Fed might decide that it needs to keep stimulating the economy. Other economic factors will also shape its policy decisions, he said.
“The Fed has become more explicit and more transparent,” said Steven Wood, chief economist at Insight Economics. “This should provide the markets with much more clarity around monetary policy action in the upcoming year.”
In its statement, the Fed said it will also keep spending $85 billion a month on bond purchases to drive down long-term borrowing costs and stimulate economic growth.
The Fed will spend $45 billion a month on long-term Treasury purchases to replace a previous bond-purchase program of an equal size. And it will keep buying $40 billion a month in mortgage bonds.
Those purchases, and the Fed’s commitment to low rates, are intended to spur borrowing and spending in an economy still growing only modestly 3½ years after the Great Recession ended.
Still, Bernanke warned that none of the Fed’s actions could outweigh the economic pain that would be caused by sharp tax increases and government spending cuts that are set to kick in next month. The standoff between President Barack Obama and Republican lawmakers over how to resolve the “fiscal cliff” is already hurting the economy, in part by reducing consumer and business confidence, he said.
Fed policymakers are hopeful that the crisis can be resolved without significant long-term economic damage, Bernanke said. They foresee slightly faster growth next year and a gradual decline in unemployment.
Bernanke’s comments about the impact of the fiscal cliff seemed to raise some concern among investors. Stocks had risen after the Fed’s statement was released. But by the end of Bernanke’s news conference, market averages were mixed. The Dow Jones industrial average closed down about 3 points. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index rose fractionally.
With its new purchases of long-term Treasurys, the Fed’s investment portfolio, which is nearly $3 trillion, will swell to nearly $4 trillion by the end of 2013 if its bond purchase programs remain fully in place.
The Fed’s plan to keep stimulating the economy at least until unemployment has reached 6.5 percent is intended to reassure consumers, companies and investors about the health of the economy, said Joseph Gagnon, a former Fed official who is a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Having only a target date of mid-2015 for any increase in interest rates “sounded gloomy,” as if the economy would remain weak until then, Gagnon said. Specifying an unemployment rate — one close to a normal rate of 6 percent or less — makes clear that the Fed will keep supporting the economy even after the job market has strengthened significantly.
“This is trying to get away from that sense of ‘Oh, my God, this is all about gloom and doom,’ ” Gagnon said.
The Fed’s new plan to link any rate increase to specific levels of unemployment and inflation mirrors a proposal pushed by Charles Evans, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
Updated forecasts that the Fed released Wednesday illustrate why it thinks it should continue helping the economy. It expects unemployment to remain at least 7.4 percent next year and 6.8 percent by the end of 2014. The earliest it sees unemployment dropping below 6.5 percent is the end of 2015.
It predicts the economy will grow no more than 3 percent next year before picking up to as much as 3.5 percent growth in 2014 and as much as 3.7 percent in 2015.
The Fed said it can pursue the aggressive stimulus programs because inflation remains below its target of roughly 2 percent annually over the long run. The statement said officials think the Fed can keep its benchmark short-term rate near zero as long as its one- to two-year inflation outlook doesn’t exceed 2.5 percent.
The statement was approved 11-1. Jeffrey Lacker, president of Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, objected for the eighth straight time this year. Lacker has said he thinks the job market is being slowed by factors beyond the Fed’s control. And he says further bond purchases risk worsening future inflation.
The latest bond-buying program would replace an expiring program called Operation Twist. With Twist, the Fed sold $45 billion a month in short-term Treasurys and used the proceeds to buy the same amount in longer-term Treasurys.
Twist didn’t expand the Fed’s investment portfolio, it just reshuffled the holdings. But the Fed has run out of short-term securities to sell. So to maintain its pace of long-term Treasury purchases and to keep long-term rates low, it must spend more and increase its portfolio.
The Fed’s portfolio totals nearly $2.9 trillion — more than three times its size before the 2008 financial crisis.
The Fed has launched three rounds of bond purchases since the financial crisis hit. In announcing a third program in September, the Fed said it would keep buying mortgage bonds until the job market improved substantially.
Skeptics note that rates on mortgages and many other loans are already at or near all-time lows. So any further declines in rates engineered by the Fed might offer little economic benefit.
But besides seeking to spur borrowing, the Fed’s drive to cut rates has another goal: to induce investors to shift money out of low-yielding bonds and into stocks, which could lift stock prices. Stock gains boost wealth and typically lead individuals and businesses to spend and invest more. The economy would benefit.
Inside and outside the Fed, a debate has raged over whether the Fed’s actions have helped support the economy over the past four years, whether they will ignite inflation later and whether they should be extended. But within the Fed, so far this year only Lacker has publicly dissented from the Fed’s aggressive actions to aid the economy.
___
AP Economics Writers Paul Wiseman, Christopher S. Rugaber and Marcy Gordon contributed to this report.
Posted by Eddie at Wednesday, December 12, 2012 0 comments

Friday, December 7, 2012

The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate

From The Wall Street Journal


By PETER SCHIFF

Democratic Party leaders, President Obama in particular, are forever telling the country that wealthy Americans are taxed at too low a rate and pay too little in taxes. The need to correct this seeming injustice is framed not simply in terms of fairness. Higher tax rates on the wealthy, we're told, would help balance the budget, allow for more "investment" in America's future and foster better economic growth for all. In support of this claim, like-minded liberal pundits point out that in the 1950s, when America's economic might was at its zenith, the rich faced tax rates as high as 91%.
True enough, the top marginal income-tax rate in the 1950s was much higher than today's top rate of 35%—but the share of income paid by the wealthiest Americans has essentially remained flat since then.
In 1958, the top 3% of taxpayers earned 14.7% of all adjusted gross income and paid 29.2% of all federal income taxes. In 2010, the top 3% earned 27.2% of adjusted gross income and their share of all federal taxes rose proportionally, to 51%.
So if the top marginal tax rate has fallen to 35% from 91%, how in the world has the tax burden on the wealthy remained roughly the same? Two factors are responsible. Lower- and middle-income workers now bear a significantly lighter burden than in the past. And the confiscatory top marginal rates of the 1950s were essentially symbolic—very few actually paid them. In reality the vast majority of top earners faced lower effective rates than they do today.
In 1958, an 81% marginal tax rate applied to incomes above $1.08 million, and the 91% rate kicked in at $3.08 million. These figures are in unadjusted 1958 dollars and correspond today to nominal income levels that are at least 10 times higher. That year, according to Internal Revenue Service records, just 236 of the nation's 45.6 million tax filers had any income that was taxed at 81% or higher. (The published IRS data do not reveal how many of these were subject to the 91% rate.)
In 1958, approximately 28,600 filers (0.06% of all taxpayers) earned the $93,168 or more needed to face marginal rates as high as 30%. These Americans—genuinely wealthy by the standards of the day—paid 5.9% of all income taxes. And now? In 2010, 3.9 million taxpayers (2.75% of all taxpayers) were subjected to rates that were 33% or higher. These Americans—many of whom would hardly call themselves wealthy—reported an adjusted gross income of $209,000 or higher, and they paid 49.7% of all income taxes.
In contrast, the share of taxes paid by the bottom two-thirds of taxpayers has fallen dramatically over the same period. In 1958, these Americans accounted for 41.3% of adjusted gross income and paid 29% of all federal taxes. By 2010, their share of adjusted gross income had fallen to 22.5%. But their share of taxes paid fell far more dramatically—to 6.7%. The 77% decline represents the single biggest difference in the way the tax burden is shared in this country since the late 1950s.
The changes came about not so much by movements in rates but by the addition of tax credits for the poor and the elimination of exemptions for the wealthy. In 1958, even the lowest-tier filers, which included everyone making up to $5,000 annually, were subjected to an effective 20% rate. Today, almost half of all tax filers have no income-tax liability whatsoever, and many "taxpayers" actually get a net refund from the government. Those nostalgic for 1950s-era "tax fairness" should bear this in mind.
The tax code of the 1950s allowed upper-income Americans to take exemptions and deductions that are unheard of today. Tax shelters were widespread, and not just for the superrich. The working wealthy—including doctors, lawyers, business owners and executives—were versed in the art of creating losses to lower their tax exposure.
For instance, a doctor who earned $50,000 through his medical practice could reduce his taxable income to zero with $50,000 in paper losses or depreciation from property he owned through a real-estate investment partnership. Huge numbers of professionals signed up for all kinds of money-losing schemes. Today, a corresponding doctor earning $500,000 can deduct a maximum of $3,000 from his taxable income, no matter how large the loss.
Those 1950s gambits lowered tax liabilities but dissuaded individuals from engaging in the more beneficial activities of increasing their incomes and expanding their businesses. As a result, they were a net drag on the economy. When Ronald Reagan finally lowered rates in the 1980s, he did so in exchange for scrapping uneconomical deductions. When business owners stopped trying to figure out how to lose money, the economy boomed.
It's hard to determine how much otherwise taxable income disappeared through tax shelters in the 1950s. As a result, direct comparisons between the 1950s and now are difficult. However, it is worth noting that from 1958 to 2010, the taxes paid by the top 3% of earners, as a percentage of total personal income (which can't be reduced by shelters), increased to 3.96% from 2.72%, while the percentage paid by the bottom two-thirds of filers fell to 0.51% in 2010 from 2.7%. This starker division of relative tax burdens can be explained by the inability of upper-income groups to shelter income.
It is a testament to the shallow nature of the national economic conversation that higher tax rates can be justified by reference to a fantasy—a 91% marginal rate that hardly any top earners paid.
In reality, tax policies that diminish the incentives and capacities of innovators, business owners and investors will not spur economic improvement. Such policies will, however, satisfy the instincts of those who want to "stick it to the rich." Never mind that the rich have already been stuck fairly well.
Mr. Schiff is the author of "The Real Crash: America's Coming Bankruptcy" (St. Martin's Press, 2012) and host of the daily radio program "The Peter Schiff Show."
A version of this article appeared Dec. 7, 2012, on page A17 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate.
Posted by Eddie at Friday, December 07, 2012 0 comments

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

From The Telegraph


Senior MP Ann Clwyd says her husband 'died like a battery hen' in hospital

A senior MP has given a harrowing account of her dying husband’s poor treatment in hospital, saying: “He died like a battery hen.”

3:52PM GMT 04 Dec 2012

Ann Clwyd broke down as she spoke about the final moments of Owen Roberts, who contracted pneumonia after being admitted. They had been married nearly 50 years.
She said her husband was squashed against the side of his bed, his lips dry, and cold from a fan that had been turned on for a patient in an adjacent bay.
A light had been flicked on in the four-bed ward and someone shouted out “anybody for breakfast?” just moments before he died., Ms Clwyd said.
She painted a picture of nurses who treated her husband with “coldness, resentment, indifference and even contempt” – echoing the words of the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt last week.
Ms Clwyd said she had had “nightmares” about what happened, adding: “I really do feel he died from people who didn’t care.”
Ms Clwyd, the Labour MP for Cynon Valley since 1984 and Tony Blair’s former human rights envoy to Iraq, said she had chosen to speak out because such treatment had become “too commonplace”.
“Nobody, nobody should have to die in conditions like I saw my husband die in,” she said during a radio interview.
Her comments came amid calls from the head of nursing in England for compassion to be placed at the centre of the profession, following a series of reports of NHS staff treating patients poorly.
Mr Roberts died in October, aged 73, following a long battle with multiple sclerosis. He had married Ann Clwyd in 1963.
The former television producer had been admitted to the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff, where he contracted pneumonia.
Ms Clwyd, 75, was called in at 5am on the morning of the day he died.
“He didn’t have any clothes over him. He was half-covered by two very thin, inadequate sheets, his feet were sticking out of the bed at an angle," she told BBC Radio 4's World at One.
“It was extremely cold and I tried to cover him with a towel. He was very distressed, totally aware of his situation. Although unable to speak because of the oxygen mask he let us know he was cold and that he wanted to come home.”
Ms Clwyd said she had seen a nurse’s round once between 2.30pm and 10.30pm on the previous day.
“I stopped one nurse in the corridor and asked why he was not in intensive care, and she said ‘there are lots of people worse than him’ and she walked on.
“I’d previously stopped another nurse, and asked when a doctor had last seen him, and I was just brushed aside and told a doctor had been to the floor but had not seen my husband but she said ‘we know what to do’.
“Well, I feel we know what to do meant ‘do nothing’.
“I’ve tried in the past to get bills on the welfare of battery hens. My husband died like a battery hen. He was six foot two, he was cramped, squashed up against the iron bars of the bed, an oxygen mask that didn’t fit his face, his eye was infected
“Because the air from the oxygen was blowing into it, his lips were very dry. I used my own lypsyl to try and moisten them. There were no nurses around.
“Just at eight o’clock, just before he died, all the lights of the ward went on, and somebody shouted ‘anybody for breakfast?’
“Now, it was obviously totally inappropriate when they knew there was somebody dying in that four-bedded ward.
“The man in the bed next to him had been feeling hot all along. He had a fan on and it was blowing the cold air towards my husband.
“So I really do feel he died of cold and he died from people who didn’t care.”
Breaking down in tears, she said: “It gives me nightmares. I really find it very difficult to sleep, and very difficult to talk about.”
But Ms Clwyd said she had to speak out “because I think it’s just too commonplace”.
Ruth Walker, executive nurse director at the hospital, invited Ms Clwyd to meet hospital officials so that a “full and formal investigation” could take place.
She said: “We will not tolerate poor care, which is why it is so important that each incident is fully investigated, so that we can drive up standards and provide patients and their families with the quality of care they need and deserve.”

Also From The Telegraph

Half of those on Liverpool Care Pathway never told

Almost half of dying patients placed on the controversial Liverpool Care Pathway are never told that life-saving treatment has been withdrawn, a national audit has found.

Half of those on Liverpool Care Pathway never told
Jeremy Hunt last night described the disclosures from records held by 178 NHS hospitals as 'totally unacceptable' Photo: GETTY IMAGES
Laura Donnelly
By , Health Correspondent
9:00PM GMT 01 Dec 2012

The study suggests that in total, around 57,000 patients a year are dying in NHS hospitals without being told that efforts to keep them alive have been stopped.
It also reveals that thousands of dying patients have been left to suffer in pain, with no attempt to keep them comfortable while drugs were administered.
Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, last night described the disclosures from records held by 178 NHS hospitals as "totally unacceptable".
He said the failure to consult patients would now be examined by an independent inquiry, which will also look at payments made to hospitals for meeting targets to place people on the pathway.
Each year around 130,000 patients are placed on the pathway. The national audit by the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute Liverpool and the Royal College of Physicians examined a representative sample of 7,058 deaths which occurred between April and June last year, at 178 NHS hospitals. Of these, X were on the pathway.
The new disclosures demonstrate just how routinely hospitals are placing patients on the pathway without informing them that steps which could hasten their death have been taken. The national audit found:
• In 44 per cent of cases when conscious patients were placed on the pathway, there was no record that the decision had been discussed with them.
• For 22 per cent of patients on the pathway, there was no evidence that comfort and safety had been maintained while medication was administered.
• One in three families of the dying never received a leaflet they should have been given to explain the process.
Critics of the pathway - which can involve the withdrawal of drugs, fluids and food, and the administration of powerful pain relief - say it is being used to hasten the deaths of the terminally-ill and elderly, in a form of "back-door euthanasia".
Other doctors, nurses and charities for the dying have come to the defence of the approach, which they say is intended to help ensure that people can die in dignity and comfort, instead of enduring invasive and painful treatment.
In recent months, there has been mounting concern over cases in which family members said they were not consulted or even told when food and fluids were withheld from their loved ones.
Earlier this month, Mr Hunt pledged to strengthen laws to protect patients, making it illegal to put anyone on the pathway - which leads to death in an average of 29 hours - without consulting them or their families.
It comes as the Government prepares to launch a new "vision for nursing" this week which will attempt to instill compassion in the profession, amid deepening concerns about the quality of care being provided on hospital wards.
Last night Mr Hunt said the evidence would be examined as part of an independent review of the practice, which will report back to him in the New Year.
He told The Sunday Telegraph: "It is totally unacceptable for people to be put on the pathway without consent where they are able to give it - that is why we are looking at what goes on in practice to make sure this doesn't happen."
Mr Hunt said he was concerned that families and patients were not being sufficiently informed, but suggested the approach to end-of-life care had been mischaracterised by some of its critics.
"We need to be much better at ensuring we are giving people dignity in their final few hours and the Liverpool Care Pathway has played a really important role in improving the standard of care in hospital, to hospice level," he said.
Earlier this month, the Department of Health began a three-month consultation on changes to the NHS constitution, which would give patients and their families a legal right to be consulted on all decisions about end-of-life care.
The rights will mean patients and relatives could sue if the requirements are not met, and doctors could be struck off if they fail to consult properly.
In a hard-hitting speech last week Mr Hunt expressed concern about the culture of the NHS, warning that too many patients were forced to experience "coldness, resentment, indifference" and "even contempt".
He warned that in the worst institutions a "normalisation of cruelty" had been fostered.
The family of Arthur Oszek, 86, say they did not find out he had been put on the Liverpool Care Pathway last year until he was left begging for a drink, having been taken off his drip.
After almost a day of discussion with medical staff, treatment was resumed, but it was too late, and Mr Oszek died within 24 hours last August.
Ann Murdoch, Mr Oszek's stepdaughter, said: "We asked the doctors why he was taken off his drip and we were told he was on the Liverpool Care Pathway. We did not even know what it was."
"There is no way that should have happened without asking us. We kicked up a fuss and demanded he be put back on his medication and eventually they agreed about 20 hours later."
NHS Ayrshire and Arran said they could not comment on individual cases, but discussed their assessments with patients and families wherever possible. On other occasions, patients placed on the pathway because doctors judged that they were nearing the end of their life went on to recover.
Patricia Greenwood, 82, was put on the pathway in August, after being admitted to Blackpool Victoria Hospital with heart problems, and then suffering a fall.
Doctors told her family that they had taken her off feeding tubes because she was not expected to last more than a couple of days.
After her son, Terry, 57, defied the hospital's orders and gave her sips of water through a straw, Mrs Greenwood, a former pub landlady, rallied, and doctors agreed to put her back on a drip.
She is now back at home and has made plans for a world cruise. The hospital trust said it had not received a complaint about her care.
A survey of 22,000 recently-bereaved Britons found relatives of those cared for in hospices rated the care far better than those whose loved ones spent their last months of life in hospital.
Less than half of families felt hospital nurses had always treated their relative with respect, compared with 80 per cent of those whose loved ones were treated in hospices.
One in six respondents said decisions were made about care which the patient would not have wanted.
Overall, health services in London were rated worst for quality of care, featuring most regularly in the bottom 20 per cent, as rated by the bereaved, while those in the South West scored most highly.
Posted by Eddie at Wednesday, December 05, 2012 0 comments
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)