http://www.ademsview.madisonforum.org/ en Copyright 2007 Thu, 09 Aug 2007 20:41:22 -0500 http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss By Guy Drexinger For over 20 years, “Reagan Democrats” have been a cornerstone of Republican electoral success. In the 1984 election, millions of Democrats fled to the Republican Party. Many of these voters were attracted by Reagan’s simple message of moral values, fiscal responsibility, and national security. Last election many of these Reagan Democrats reached a point of frustration and as a result, began to return to their roots, in the Democratic Party. Their return to the Democratic Party was caused by many factors, including several Republican members of Congress being viewed as abrasive social conservatives, the numerous Republican bribery and corruption scandals, and lastly, the complete failure of the Republican Party leadership to properly monitor and probe into the Second Iraq War, giving President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and Secretary of Defense virtually unchecked power. The 2006 elections were about change. Reagan Democrats were instrumental in voting out several long-time members of Congress, including Republican Rick Santorum, the third ranking U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania. The former U.S. Senator failed to question and speak out against President Bush. Instead he voted 98% of the time with President Bush. The people of Pennsylvania didn’t think much of this, and like the rest of the country, decided it was time for a change. Exit polls from the 2006 election showed that in Congressional races the 30-44 year olds voted Democratic by an 8% margin, and the 45-59 year olds voted Democratic by a 7% margin. In addition, college graduates voted for the Democratic Congressional candidates by a 7% margin. Lastly, those who labeled themselves as moderates voted Democratic by a 22% margin. After the 2006 election, Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster, summed up the shift of Reagan Democrats in this way: “The Republican party has failed them. It didn’t cut spending. It wasn’t honest. It hasn’t controlled immigration. On issue after issue it didn’t do what voters expected.” Most alarming to me is the Second Iraq War, where the United States (under Republican leadership) sent our soldiers into combat without appropriate body armor, sent them out in unarmored Humvees, and upon their return home, failed in their Support the Troops mantra by not providing them with the care they needed and deserved. A strong America questions our leadership and demands change when its leadership has failed. While 2006 was an election about change, I believe more change is coming in 2008. If you see me driving around Marietta with my bumper stickers “Someone Else for President,” and “1-20-09, Bush’s Last Day,” give me a honk. It’s high time we had elected officials in both parties doing the work we are sending them to do. To me this starts with solving the kitchen table issues facing our families (none more important than health care), and ends with rebuilding our allies to assure a safe and secure America. ]]> http://www.ademsview.madisonforum.org/2007/08/reagan_democrats_return_to_the.html http://www.ademsview.madisonforum.org/2007/08/reagan_democrats_return_to_the.html Thu, 09 Aug 2007 20:41:22 -0500 By Guy Drexinger In the weeks ahead, Congress will assess the troop surge in Iraq. On January 10, 2007, President Bush’s speech to the nation included a line that most all Americans can agree upon – “We need to change our strategy in Iraq.” Bush continued, saying “So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down the sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American forces. So I’ve committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq.” This number has now grown to 30,000. Unfortunately, to accomplish the troop surge, the Army and Marine Corps had to look to existing units. The reality was there were only two ways to get more brigades into Iraq: extending the deployment of units that were already there, or accelerating the return of the units that had been there recently. As Bush was contemplating a surge of U.S. troops in Iraq, several former military officers warned such action could place an almost fatal strain on an already stressed force. One such former military officer and Fox News commentator, retired Army Colonial David Hunt, said assigning soldiers and Marines in Iraq for longer tours of duty is cause to worry: “Everyone we met was on a second tour, at least, many were on their fourth or fifth combat tour in either Iraq or Afghanistan. The soldiers are tired; the families are going crazy. It’s not the solution.” Last December, during the troop surge discussions, Former Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell, told CBS’ Face the Nation, that “the active Army is about broken,” and on March 2, 2007, as the troop surge was beginning, Arnold Punaro, Chairman of the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, said “we can’t sustain the National Guard and Reserves on the course we’re on.” I believe the problem we face is best summed up by Maryland Congressman Wayne Gilchrest, a Vietnam Veteran, “the reality is that the U.S. made a grave miscalculation from the beginning. It was not a military miscalculation, but a cultural miscalculation. Iraqis have little historical basis or understanding of a democratic form of government. Thousands of years of history in that region have sent the unfortunate message that you are either in power and you rule with an iron fist, or you are not in power and you are slaughtered.” Congressman Gilchrest concludes “It is time to honestly and responsibly evaluate our original mission and realize that we accomplished our task of ending the brutal reign of Saddam Hussein and provided the basis for a functioning, democratically-elected government, but that Iraq is now engaged in a civil war U.S. military force alone cannot resolve.” Columnist Charles Krauthammer recently suggested that Bush tell Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, “you can have your civil war without us, we will be around to pick up the pieces the best we can.” The favorite target of staunch Bush supporters, Pennsylvania Congressman and Vietnam veteran, John Murtha, has long proposed a plan where our troops wouldn’t be trapped in this civil war, but redeployed nearby so they could attack al-Qaida groups within Iraq. The time has come to implement such a plan, and continue an all out assault on the War on Terrorism, instead of attempting to accomplish some type of victory in what has evolved into Iraq’s civil war. ]]> http://www.ademsview.madisonforum.org/2007/06/beyond_the_call_of_duty.html http://www.ademsview.madisonforum.org/2007/06/beyond_the_call_of_duty.html Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:54:27 -0500 By Guy Drexinger It seems like 2002 all over again, and a “New Day in Georgia.” Most of the Madison Forum members remember 2002, the year when Sonny Perdue defeated Roy Barnes to become the first Republican governor since reconstruction. Most also remember that in his first week in office, Governor Perdue proposed a $280 million property tax hike. We’ll, five years later, and just over 24 hours before the session’s end, Governor Perdue vetoed the $700 million mid-year spending plan that included a $142 property tax rebate. The next morning, the House voted to override the veto, but the Senate never took up the issue. One of the longest legislative sessions ended on April 20th, with the Governor to call a special session for May. “Coming back in May again this year to take care of a dispute that couldn’t be settled in April is a bad sign,” said Charles Bullock, a political science professor at the University of Georgia. According to Professor Bullock, the Governor didn’t actively get involved in the review of his budget requests until very late in the session, unlike this Governor’s recent predecessors. In the end, the money Governor Perdue wanted for certain initiatives were left out of the House and Senate’s compromise mid-year budget. He also wanted a tax cut of his own, one that would go only to high-income retirees. His plan would have eliminated state income taxes on all retirement income. Presently, retirees are allowed up to $25,000 retirement income exclusion on income including pensions, dividends and interest income. In addition, social security is not taxable in Georgia. In the end, this session will go down as the session of rivalries, a session of huge egos, and a session of disagreements between two men that appear headed to meet in the 2010 Governor’s race. So where do we go from here in the special session slated for May that will cost Georgia taxpayers an estimated $43,000 each day, for an estimated total of $200,000 - $225,000? In his recent article “This special session, our politicians should just go fishin,” Brett Blackwood, a columnist from the Gainesville Times, had what I think is the best solution to sort out this mess. The plan laid out by Mr. Blackwood begins by acknowledging that Governor Perdue is a big proponent of fishing, and wants to bring more people to our lakes and rivers. It also presents a solution for the $142 million of unspent money that the House and Senate wanted to go to property tax rebates. Mr. Blackwell calculates the tax rebate to each Georgian to be $15.77. He arrives at this number by dividing the 9 million Georgians by the “left over” $142 million. He subtracts from this $15.77 the reduced cost of a fishing license or $6 (regularly $9 but an introductory offer cuts $3 from the cost). He then subtracts $7.50 for a rod and reel (regularly $15 but buying 9 million would result in a 50% discount). This leaves $2.27 that Mr. Blackwood believes should be used to buy an RC Cola, a Moon Pie, and a can of sardines for each Georgian. He concludes that this will being a new era into our great state of Georgia…the fishing state. A “New Day in Georgia” indeed. Will the special session have any effect on Georgia voters? Probably not since the unfortunate reality is that not many voters pay a whole lot of attention to what the General Assembly does. Perhaps they should. ]]> http://www.ademsview.madisonforum.org/2007/05/legislators_governor_should_ju.html http://www.ademsview.madisonforum.org/2007/05/legislators_governor_should_ju.html Fri, 04 May 2007 10:27:22 -0500 By Guy Drexinger With Crossover Day (the last day a bill can pass in the House or Senate to be considered by the other chamber) now having come and gone, one bill involving children’s health care moves ahead, and one does not. House Bill 340, with co-sponsors including Rich Golick (R-Smyrna) and Earl Ehrhart (R-Powder Springs), reduces the income level to qualify for Georgia PeachCare for children of families whose income is below 235% of the poverty level, to income below 200% of the poverty level. The result is all but certain to be an increase in the number of uninsured children in Georgia. Discretion is also given under HB 340 to revise the threshold to 185%, and eliminate vision benefits from Georgia PeachCare. In contrast, House Bill 324, “the Children’s Health Insurance Act,” provided for the creation of a health insurance plan that would have covered all of Georgia’s children. Two of the co-sponsors of this bill were Rob Teilhet (D-Smyrna), and Judy Manning (R-Marietta). Instead of supporting HB 324, Republicans in the House chose to cut the number of children from Georgia PeachCare. The direction in which the Republican-controlled General Assembly is now headed will increase the number of uninsured children in Georgia by 3,000 – 5,000 a year, according to the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute. These cuts to the number of children from Georgia PeachCare come in spite of the fact that Georgia is sixth among all states with the most uninsured children. In the long run, signing up more, and not fewer children for Georgia PeachCare, will save Georgia taxpayers money. When uninsured children become ill, and utilize expensive hospital emergency room care, it costs us more money by running up future health care costs. Someone has to eventually pay for these costs. One way we can control future health care costs is to insure all of our children. This allows children to receive preventative, primary, and specialty care in physicians’ offices, instead of meeting their health needs only at critical times in emergency rooms. The bi-partisan “Children’s Health Insurance Act,” found and declared that: (i) All children need quality, timely health care in order to achieve maximum physical and mental health, to benefit fully from their educational opportunities, and to mature into the productive citizens ready to meet tomorrow’s Georgia needs; (ii) Lack of health insurance is associated with low utilization of appropriate health services, poorer health, poorer school achievement, and lower lifetime earnings; and (iii) At least 300,000 Georgia children are uninsured, and many others have unstable or inadequate insurance. In looking to cut costs, Governor Perdue and the Republican legislature, are now about to cut children. They see Georgia’s PeachCare program as too generous. Many Georgia Republican legislators believe that no government plan can possibly work as well as the private market. When President Bush’s budget eliminated the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (which helps fund Georgia’s PeachCare), the Board Chair of the American Medical Association, Cecil Wilson, M.D., stated that “reauthorizing this successful government program that covers children from lower income families is a must, and an important first step toward getting more Americans health care coverage.” Instead of a first step forward, Republicans are about to take us two steps back – and Georgia’s children, and our great state, will pay the price. ]]> http://www.ademsview.madisonforum.org/2007/04/georgia_peachcare_two_steps_ba.html http://www.ademsview.madisonforum.org/2007/04/georgia_peachcare_two_steps_ba.html Sat, 07 Apr 2007 10:10:57 -0500 By Guy Drexinger I want to start with where we can probably all agree – the Internal Revenue Service has become too powerful and is often out of control in its treatment of taxpayers. The Revenue Act of 1862 established the Office of the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. The Commissioner was given the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, along with the right to enforce tax laws through the seizure of property through prosecution. In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the taxation of income a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system, further expanding the power of the IRS. We have a serious problem today because the burden of proof is on the taxpayer to show that the taxpayer did not fail to pay the taxes due prior to having property liened and/or seized. In addition, individuals and businesses are spending endless number of hours attempting to understand various tax provisions, comply with them, and pay the appropriate taxes due. Our current tax system is in need of reform. Once reformed, we need to have a tax system that is stable, predictable, and competitive. In addition, the tax system needs to be one that is easy for individuals and businesses to comply and to pay all taxes required. I have read The Fair Tax Book and agree completely with the chapter on the embedded costs of our tax code, which is causing our taxes to be higher. Lastly, while virtually all of us like tax cuts, we need to look at timing in terms of these cuts. An important question that should be asked is whether tax cuts make sense when our spendthrift federal government has run up the national debt to $8.7 trillion and we are fighting two wars? Taxes in this country have always been higher during wars. Under the pressure of paying for the United States’ involvement in WWI, WWII, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, the top rate rose to 77% in 1918, to 94% in 1944, to 91% in 1951, and to 77% in 1964. During these wars, there was general agreement that everyone needed to make some financial sacrifices to sustain our war efforts, especially those who had received the largest financial rewards from living in this country. Today’s top rate is 35%. After WWI, progressive tax systems were introduced in most industrialized countries to fund the increased government spending for social programs, but in particular large-scale wars and reconstruction requirements. I believe in a progressive tax system, with the caveat that rates are not too steep so as to take away the incentive to earn the next dollar. As pointed out by Teddy Roosevelt in 1910, “the really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means; therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes.” Progressivity should be embodied in the tax rate structure and tax base, instead of through a steep jump in rates. One way to do this would be to significantly increase the standard deduction. This would reduce the number of those who itemize deductions, thereby helping with simplification, while at the same time maintaining a certain level of progressivity in the tax system. Proponents of the flat tax and fair tax often claim it is fairer than progressive taxation since everyone pays the same. Opponents of a pure flat-tax, myself included, believe that the last $100 of income for a family near poverty is considerably more important than someone that has income of over $1 million. In addition, as to the fair-tax, the level of spending for the person with $1 million of income is proportionately less than the person near the poverty level of income. Flat-tax and fair tax proponents usually exempt from taxation household income below a determined level, which as a result, is consistent with a progressive average tax rate. Flat-rate taxes and sales taxes usually have much lower compliance costs than graduated taxes, but providing exemptions, deductions, or credits that are universal can have the same outcome. Targeted tax deductions and credits require clear definitions and often create difficulties with compliance. The key to tax simplification is to reduce or eliminate distinctions across economic activities and personal characteristics. In search of simplification, there is a movement for a new tax system, such as the flat tax and/or the fair tax. An important consideration in making such a change is that no country has successfully administered a high rate national sales tax or flat tax. While I do not believe that a national sales tax should be our only form of taxes, I am interested in looking at the possibility of adding it as a source of federal tax collections. By doing so, we will be able to lower individual and business tax rates due to the increased revenue from those who are avoiding paying their fair share of taxes. While I am not sold on some of the ideas outlined in The Fair Tax Book, I do like the idea of more balanced tax collections such as what takes place at the state level. In Georgia, 44% of tax collections are from sales taxes, 47% from income taxes, and 9% from other taxes. I am glad that there is so much discussion on the fair tax, and about tax reform in general. It is time to begin to take some bold steps toward reform, beginning with simplification. My hope is that in the very near future, the IRS, as we know it, will be no more. ]]> http://www.ademsview.madisonforum.org/2007/03/bold_steps_needed_to_end_the_i.html http://www.ademsview.madisonforum.org/2007/03/bold_steps_needed_to_end_the_i.html Fri, 02 Mar 2007 12:04:36 -0500 When Michael Opitz asked me if I would be interested in writing a Democratic View for The Madison Forum’s website, I told him I needed a few days to think about it. I was coming off an almost two year campaign for Insurance Commissioner, and prior to that, I had served four years as the Chairman of the Cobb County Democratic Committee. For the first time in over twenty years, I was not headed into another tax season. I was beginning to feel rested again, but not ready to put too much on my plate, yet I was starting to look for a few things to do. After considering Michael’s offer to provide my input to The Madison Forum, I accepted and look forward to writing a Democratic View. I am no stranger to your group, having attended a meeting last spring as the guest of Bill Clements during the election year. At this meeting, I presented what I believed was the key issue in my race against the long-time incumbent --- I was not taking any money from the insurance industry (i.e. insurance & HMO executives) and had one central focus, to lower insurance rates for Georgia’s families and businesses. One idea I discussed often during the campaign as a way to reduce auto premiums, was taken from legislation passed in Arizona. Those found to be driving without insurance would be fined $500 for a first offense (instead of the current fine of $25), with much of the money collected at the county level transferred to a fund that would have been established at the Department of Insurance. This fund would have been used to pay for property damage and medical expenses for those involved in an accident with an uninsured or under-insured driver, thereby reducing the uninsured motorist’s portion of our premiums. I believed that penalties for driving without insurance needed to be tough enough so our families and financial security were not in danger. Many of you who are involved with The Madison Forum may automatically label me as a liberal Democrat, but over time, hopefully some of you will see that I am a fiscally conservative Democrat who is interested in helping address and solve some very pressing issues. As an accountant for over 20 years, and a business and estate lawyer for 15 years, I have helped thousands of families meet their planning needs. As such, I am going to be writing on those issues where I have some knowledge, and issues that I feel strongest about, such as the need for tax reform and health care reform. I do not expect to be weighing in on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. I will offer some thoughts on the issue that appears to be of great interest and importance to many of you, illegal immigration. During my campaign, a number of people asked me what I thought about the Fair Tax. I did not offer much by way of an answer, but promised to read the Boortz/Linder Fair Tax Book after the election so I could become more educated on the idea. Having now read the Fair Tax Book, I will write my first Democratic View issues column on tax reform, beginning with Federal tax reform, then moving to Georgia tax reform. I look forward to participating in The Madison Forum, and to receiving your comments. http://www.ademsview.madisonforum.org/2007/01/meet_guy_drexinger.html http://www.ademsview.madisonforum.org/2007/01/meet_guy_drexinger.html Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:06:22 -0500