Doc's Talk: Elections, Policies and how these are determined

Saturday, May 10, 2008

Elections, Policies and how these are determined

GS Don Morris, Ph.D.

According to the surveys, pundits and political parties, Americans are ready for change. Why? It is postulated that most of us are very concerned about the economy-it is our number one issue that drives us daily. Furthermore, we are told that the disparity of income within the American society is responsible for many of our upsets. Notice how we are being “told” what to believe and we are so “upset” that we happily accept what the news “talking heads” tell us or what our favorite cable program or blog tells us. Never mind that the facts portray a different story, you see, avoid the facts if they don’t enhance your position. I do not know why I continue to be amazed at our willingness to not research something so important-we make decisions regarding our next President, our next Congress and future economic policies based upon incomplete, inaccurate and downright deceitful statements made by individuals driven by a political agenda. Why are we willing to do the research when we are thinking of buying a car, a new home or even a new HD, flat screen television? We don’t accept THE word of the salespersons or the stores whose job it is to sell us; rather, we do the proper thing and study all of the buying details and come to a decision that is in our best interest-we want to get the best deal. Yet, when it comes to an issue like income distribution, we accept without question what we are told. Let us look at the facts regarding income today.

You are led to believe that the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the rest are in a period of stagnation. Some pundits even produce Census Bureau data to make their case. The problem with this is we have other data from the Internal Revenue service that demonstrates the opposite of this conclusion. For example, were you aware of the following (IRS data):

· People in the bottom fifth of income tax filers in 1996 had their incomes increase by 91% by 2005.
· The top 1% saw their income decline by 21%.
· Meanwhile, the average taxpayers’ real income increased by 24% between 196-2005.
Given that this data is accurate, how can this be explained? Thomas Sowell wrote a piece a year ago that offered several explanations.1 He suggested that “wild cards” exist in data and we should be aware of them as pundits dispense them freely-of course, these good monitor readers are clueless with their understanding of such data points. Upon examination of but two of these wild cards, the truth emerges. What are the two wildcards?

· Most Americans do not stay in the same income brackets throughout their lives-millions of people move from one bracket to another in just a few years.
· Income statistics are about households or families-these vary over time, they vary between one racial or ethnic group and another and they vary between one bracket and another.

Knowing this information, have you figured out why the Census Bureau data and the IRS data are at odds with one another? Let’s examine the first wild card. Prof. Sowell suggests that when one compares the top income bracket with the bottom one over some years tells you NOTHING abut what is actually happening to real people who are moving between the income brackets during this time. Thus, The IRS data (tracks the same individuals over time) finds those in the bottom 20% of income-tax filers almost doubling their income in a decade. Ah huh, this also explains why the share of income going to the bottom 20% bracket can be going down (Census Bureau data) while the income going to the people who began the decade in that bracket is going up in large amounts. The truth is the only way to follow income levels in people is to follow actual people, not trend analysis across income brackets!

Let’s now examine the second wild card. Family households do vary in size overtime. This is why household income seems to remain unchanged for decades while per capita income is going up by very large amounts. Simple, the number of people/household and per family is declining. Finally, understand that differences in the number of people per household from one ethnic group to another explains why Hispanics have higher household incomes than blacks, while blacks have higher personal incomes than Hispanics.

Taxes certainly impact everyone’s income. Dependent upon the state in which you live, you have more or less total taxes and thus total dollars being taken from your wallet each month. Again, instead of laying “the blame” on one party r person, take a moment and understand some facts. In California we pay a state tax on every gallon of gasoline-is it a fixed amount oh no, it is a percentage. Do you think the California politicians are truly concerned with gasoline prices? California makes more money every time the price of a gallon of gas rises-and the little secret no one wants you to know? Governments, local, state and federal are making more money per gallon of gasoline than the oil companies. Do you hear anyone suggesting we should investigate the governments? Anyone complaining about the “windfall” profits the states are making? Yet, as gas prices increase all you hear is the “outrage” everyone has for the oil industry. You want more of your money you earn each day? Reduce taxes!! This can be done in a moment.

Of course this will not happen because one Party has you believing a myth, “the only way out of debt problem is to increase taxes. Huh? Take a moment and just think about this idea. Hw do you take home more money? You, work more hours, secure a second/third job or get another job that pays more or you reduce your expenses. Taxes are like any other expense you have, reduce the tax liability and you have more in pocket money. To tell me that you want to increase my taxes is necessary for our country is pure nonsense. One other little fact a certain Party will not tell you is the lower the tax rate, the more actual taxes are collected. Our local, state and Federal governments need to operate as many responsible American households operate-on the plus side. Many Americans have learned wanting some thing and affording that same thing are not the same. Save money and pay cash for those “must have/I want” items like iphones, flat screen televisions and the latest designer clothes.

Yes, we are a consumption-oriented economy. Institutions dedicated to make it easy for us to spend surround us. From easy to secure credit cards, to advertisers bombarding us from morning to night that we must have, need to possess, and can’t live without items. We are our own worst enemies! No one is forcing us to spend more than we make but we have learned otherwise. This is a major contributor to the conditions that exist today in our own economy and it also helps to explain why certain of us think the economy is awful. Perhaps looking into a mirror is the first step to resolution.

End Note
1. Sowell, Thomas, ”Income Confusion”, Townhall.com, Nov 21, 2007

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk