Getting Political: An open letter to Congressman Murphy
Ah, tax season... When human fancy turns to political outrage:
Dear Representative Murphy
I received your letter this morning regarding my concerns on the so-called austerity measures being enacted by Congress, and I find myself profoundly disappointed in your response.
You tell me that the concern I evinced regarding public broadcasting and the ability of PBS to provide thoughtful quality programming is understandable, given that you yourself defended PBS back in 2006. However, you then go on to assert that PBS/NPR, should be able to manage sufficiently on a commercial business model.
While I don't think that cutting funding will be the death knell for PBS, it will put a dent in their operational finances. It also doesn't put financial support behind your belief in "quality education", and coupled with the efforts of our current governor to reduce funding to our colleges, these austerity efforts of Congress paint a sad and short-sighted vision of recovery for America.
Why do I say that? Because one of the first things we learned in economic theory is that economic growth (and by extension, economic recovery) is most strongly influenced by three factors: Availability of Resources, Superior Resources and Technology.
Superior resources isn't just about better machines: it's about better people. People who are healthy and well-educated and able to contribute to their workplace and by extension the economy as a whole. They earn better wages, and can provide better opportunities in turn for their own children. It's never a loss to invest funding in your human capital.
In turn, you talk to me about the record deficit at the same time Congress is cutting both medical and food assistance to the poorest of your constituents, and PAT transit has cut service by 35% in Pittsburgh, making it harder for those same people to get to the jobs that they do still have.
I'm lucky, sir. I am the only one of four children to make it through four years of college in my family, and as a result I'm holding a job now that pays about twice as much as my own mother made, raising five children on her own. Accordingly, I'm pleased to be able to pay my taxes to help my government help others, to pay for the services of my local government to provide services and protection to my neighborhood.
But at the same time as I'm paying my taxes of 35% I am not ignorant enough to miss the fact that things are neither equitable nor fair. The rich certainly pay less of a tax burden, due to new tax laws and tax breaks that are not available to those less fortunate:
http://www.mymoneyblog.com/historical-federal-tax-rates-by-income-group.html
Equally, corporations should account for the bulk on tax income, being set at 35% also. But again, that's vastly misleading, given the tax breaks and shelters available to them, even when they don't "offshore" their headquarters:
http://www.smartmoney.com/investing/economy/high-corporate-tax-rate-is-misleading-22463/
These shelters and evasions meant that the corporate tax contribution as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product falls far short of that of similarly situated countries:
http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/FE9DCA58402875D7852573680064DA50?OpenDocument
http://www.businesspundit.com/25-corporations-that-pay-less-taxes-than-you-do/
What am I asking? I'm asking that you and your fellow statesmen start acting as the representatives for the people and not for business interests. I'm asking that when you start looking at a way to trim that god-awful deficit, you start by ensuring that the tax burden - the government's income - is distributed fairly and equitably.
That when you must cut programs, you ensure that the programs that are cut are not those that were put in place to keep the poorest amidst us afloat - to keep food in our childrens' mouths. (And if you feel that there are too many mouths to feed, that you make sure that the poor have easy access to medical programs and birth control.) So many of these so-called "entitlement programs" for food and healthcare are simply programs designed to keep our human resources operating effectively.
I want you to look at every cut on that list and ask: Will this change take away those things that enable this country to grow? Does is make it harder for our businesses to get resources? Does it leave the people less educated? Does it stifle the development of new technology? *Are these changes going to grow our economy?*
There was a theory once back in the Reagan years that in giving tax cuts to the corporations and the rich, that the benefits would "trickle down" to the poor. We're thirty years wiser now sir, and what we've seen in that time is that the richer only got richer, and the economic divide between the classes has only gotten wider.
To quote Matthew 6:21: "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." We give our money, our time, our attention to those things that matter most.
For me - and for many others like me - that means that if Congress has to pick and choose where to make these budget cuts, we hope and pray that the people elected to represent us don't elect to leave the weakest among us to sit hungry and sick in the streets.
Respectfully yours,
L...
This entry was originally posted at http://rissicat.dreamwidth.org/90179.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
Dear Representative Murphy
I received your letter this morning regarding my concerns on the so-called austerity measures being enacted by Congress, and I find myself profoundly disappointed in your response.
You tell me that the concern I evinced regarding public broadcasting and the ability of PBS to provide thoughtful quality programming is understandable, given that you yourself defended PBS back in 2006. However, you then go on to assert that PBS/NPR, should be able to manage sufficiently on a commercial business model.
While I don't think that cutting funding will be the death knell for PBS, it will put a dent in their operational finances. It also doesn't put financial support behind your belief in "quality education", and coupled with the efforts of our current governor to reduce funding to our colleges, these austerity efforts of Congress paint a sad and short-sighted vision of recovery for America.
Why do I say that? Because one of the first things we learned in economic theory is that economic growth (and by extension, economic recovery) is most strongly influenced by three factors: Availability of Resources, Superior Resources and Technology.
Superior resources isn't just about better machines: it's about better people. People who are healthy and well-educated and able to contribute to their workplace and by extension the economy as a whole. They earn better wages, and can provide better opportunities in turn for their own children. It's never a loss to invest funding in your human capital.
In turn, you talk to me about the record deficit at the same time Congress is cutting both medical and food assistance to the poorest of your constituents, and PAT transit has cut service by 35% in Pittsburgh, making it harder for those same people to get to the jobs that they do still have.
I'm lucky, sir. I am the only one of four children to make it through four years of college in my family, and as a result I'm holding a job now that pays about twice as much as my own mother made, raising five children on her own. Accordingly, I'm pleased to be able to pay my taxes to help my government help others, to pay for the services of my local government to provide services and protection to my neighborhood.
But at the same time as I'm paying my taxes of 35% I am not ignorant enough to miss the fact that things are neither equitable nor fair. The rich certainly pay less of a tax burden, due to new tax laws and tax breaks that are not available to those less fortunate:
http://www.mymoneyblog.com/historical-federal-tax-rates-by-income-group.html
Equally, corporations should account for the bulk on tax income, being set at 35% also. But again, that's vastly misleading, given the tax breaks and shelters available to them, even when they don't "offshore" their headquarters:
http://www.smartmoney.com/investing/economy/high-corporate-tax-rate-is-misleading-22463/
These shelters and evasions meant that the corporate tax contribution as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product falls far short of that of similarly situated countries:
http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/FE9DCA58402875D7852573680064DA50?OpenDocument
http://www.businesspundit.com/25-corporations-that-pay-less-taxes-than-you-do/
What am I asking? I'm asking that you and your fellow statesmen start acting as the representatives for the people and not for business interests. I'm asking that when you start looking at a way to trim that god-awful deficit, you start by ensuring that the tax burden - the government's income - is distributed fairly and equitably.
That when you must cut programs, you ensure that the programs that are cut are not those that were put in place to keep the poorest amidst us afloat - to keep food in our childrens' mouths. (And if you feel that there are too many mouths to feed, that you make sure that the poor have easy access to medical programs and birth control.) So many of these so-called "entitlement programs" for food and healthcare are simply programs designed to keep our human resources operating effectively.
I want you to look at every cut on that list and ask: Will this change take away those things that enable this country to grow? Does is make it harder for our businesses to get resources? Does it leave the people less educated? Does it stifle the development of new technology? *Are these changes going to grow our economy?*
There was a theory once back in the Reagan years that in giving tax cuts to the corporations and the rich, that the benefits would "trickle down" to the poor. We're thirty years wiser now sir, and what we've seen in that time is that the richer only got richer, and the economic divide between the classes has only gotten wider.
To quote Matthew 6:21: "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." We give our money, our time, our attention to those things that matter most.
For me - and for many others like me - that means that if Congress has to pick and choose where to make these budget cuts, we hope and pray that the people elected to represent us don't elect to leave the weakest among us to sit hungry and sick in the streets.
Respectfully yours,
L...
This entry was originally posted at http://rissicat.dreamwidth.org/90179.html. Please comment there using OpenID.