Has anyone else noticed that nearly all of the advertisements for Mayor/Governor (MG) Bredesen are attack ads against Marsha Blackburn? The only thing that he has announced is his intention to pursue a rejection of the border wall. He claimed to support Kavanaugh, but further research indicated that he was less than candid in that statement. His own campaign workers revealed that it was merely a ploy.
Marsha Blackburn, on the other hand, has openly declared how she will vote on most of the critical issues facing the country. She will support secure borders, continuing the tax cuts, and original intent interpretation of the Constitution.
MG Bredesen has proclaimed that he will be “nobody’s stooge.” He will vote his own mind. He is not like some voters, he assumes, wishy washy and on the fence until they see which way to vote for a winner. And I believe him. Unfortunately, if he is elected, his “mind” seems to be at odds with the best interests of the country.
Incidentally I do not believe that the majority of voters are in that “bucket.” They are aware enough to see through his subterfuge and will vote accordingly.
It is time to retire, MG.
Friday, October 19, 2018
Sunday, October 14, 2018
Midnight Inspiration Current Politics on Gubernatorial and Senatorial Races
Midnight inspiration has struck again and I will not sleep until these ideas are reduced to binary code and cached on my computer hard drive. So here goes. A couple of clarifications immediately arise. It is not quite midnight. It is more like 3:33 AM, and the inspiration may be viewed as partisan obsession. However it is perceived, this needs to be recorded.
History provides unique insights into current political contests. And, in this instance, it offers special revelations into two concurrent races. First the historical context. Then-Governor, Phil Bredesen proposed and ultimately cut TNCare in 2008 in light of the reality that the bloated medical system was consuming an untenable and unsustainable portion of the State’s budget. This was not only an act of fiscal responsibility, it was one of self preservation. Tennessee would have very quickly become insolvent and ultimately bankrupt.
That event and its implications impinges on two current races: first the contest to replace the retiring Senator Corker and second the race to succeed Governor Haslam. Consider first, Bredesen’s claim of fiscal responsibility in light of federal budget shortfalls. Behind Bredesen’s “rescue” of the State by draconian budget cuts is the fact that Bredesen created the medical monster in the first place.
His current support for expanding Medicaid seems to indicate that he is of the opinion that an expanded TNCare would have and can now survive with the aid of the federal dollar tree. The assumption is unending, unrestricted federal dollars. He and the current candidate for Governor neglect to inform the voters that the federal bucks behind the expansion are immediately decreasing and will be ultimately terminated. This will plunge the State of Tennessee back into the budget morass that Bredesen faced in 2008. Once the federal support ceases, the expanded TNCare budget will be a significant percentage of the State’s overall revenue outflow, squeezing out a myriad of other necessary programs.
Candidate Dean is subjecting himself or a succeeding administration with the same uncomfortable and decimating decision Bredesen faced. Bill Lee, on the other hand, opposes the expansion, explaining that expanding a faulty and flawed system will not solve its problems. A superior option is to reform or completely restructure the program to make it both workable and sustainable.
The second implication is that Bredesen’s support of the Medicaid’s expansion buttresses the view that he perceives the federal “money tree” as both unlimited and unending. This leads to the conclusion that Bredesen is neither fiscally conservative nor moderate in his political inclinations. It also supports the claims by Marsha Blackburn that his seeming political bipartisan stance on the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh was merely a ploy to mislead the politically unsophisticated voters into believing that he can indeed change the partisan climate in Washington.
Rather, his near socialistic preference for “revenue sharing” reveals his underlying motive to add one more liberal Democratic vote to the Senate. History prescribes that we relegate former Mayor, former Governor Bredesen to the retirement that he so richly deserves. He should be treated like a beloved, but senile Grampa and eased out of the spotlight and public view. We, the Tennessee voters elevated a liberal Nashville mayor to the Governorship once and TNCare’s bloated budget nearly bankrupted the state once. A second former mayor is running for the same seat, proposing the same Medicaid expansion. What part of the previous failure does he not understand?
And Mayor number one is attempting to add his liberal viewpoint to the United States Senate. Listen to history. Don’t repeat it.
History provides unique insights into current political contests. And, in this instance, it offers special revelations into two concurrent races. First the historical context. Then-Governor, Phil Bredesen proposed and ultimately cut TNCare in 2008 in light of the reality that the bloated medical system was consuming an untenable and unsustainable portion of the State’s budget. This was not only an act of fiscal responsibility, it was one of self preservation. Tennessee would have very quickly become insolvent and ultimately bankrupt.
That event and its implications impinges on two current races: first the contest to replace the retiring Senator Corker and second the race to succeed Governor Haslam. Consider first, Bredesen’s claim of fiscal responsibility in light of federal budget shortfalls. Behind Bredesen’s “rescue” of the State by draconian budget cuts is the fact that Bredesen created the medical monster in the first place.
His current support for expanding Medicaid seems to indicate that he is of the opinion that an expanded TNCare would have and can now survive with the aid of the federal dollar tree. The assumption is unending, unrestricted federal dollars. He and the current candidate for Governor neglect to inform the voters that the federal bucks behind the expansion are immediately decreasing and will be ultimately terminated. This will plunge the State of Tennessee back into the budget morass that Bredesen faced in 2008. Once the federal support ceases, the expanded TNCare budget will be a significant percentage of the State’s overall revenue outflow, squeezing out a myriad of other necessary programs.
Candidate Dean is subjecting himself or a succeeding administration with the same uncomfortable and decimating decision Bredesen faced. Bill Lee, on the other hand, opposes the expansion, explaining that expanding a faulty and flawed system will not solve its problems. A superior option is to reform or completely restructure the program to make it both workable and sustainable.
The second implication is that Bredesen’s support of the Medicaid’s expansion buttresses the view that he perceives the federal “money tree” as both unlimited and unending. This leads to the conclusion that Bredesen is neither fiscally conservative nor moderate in his political inclinations. It also supports the claims by Marsha Blackburn that his seeming political bipartisan stance on the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh was merely a ploy to mislead the politically unsophisticated voters into believing that he can indeed change the partisan climate in Washington.
Rather, his near socialistic preference for “revenue sharing” reveals his underlying motive to add one more liberal Democratic vote to the Senate. History prescribes that we relegate former Mayor, former Governor Bredesen to the retirement that he so richly deserves. He should be treated like a beloved, but senile Grampa and eased out of the spotlight and public view. We, the Tennessee voters elevated a liberal Nashville mayor to the Governorship once and TNCare’s bloated budget nearly bankrupted the state once. A second former mayor is running for the same seat, proposing the same Medicaid expansion. What part of the previous failure does he not understand?
And Mayor number one is attempting to add his liberal viewpoint to the United States Senate. Listen to history. Don’t repeat it.
Monday, October 1, 2018
Tampon Tax
The previous weeks and posts have been ridiculously strenuous and taxing. (Note the pun for the astute reader.) This will break the tension.
Tampon Tax
Is “over exaggerate” a legitimate descriptor? If you exaggerate, can you do more than that? If it is, the letter on “tampon tax” in Monday’s Tennessean (10/1) is an overexaggeration. ( I coined the word to emphasize its import.) The key issue was that feminine hygiene products are taxed. The impact of this tax was quoted as $1800 per person over a lifetime. The author did admit that the entire cost was not the tampon itself, but did not carry the analysis any farther.
The argument that this is a tax on a vagina was “colorful” or at least descriptive, but highly inflammatory. “Just because they are women, they have to pay more.” Well, the actual complaint is not with the tax, but on the cultural and hygienic constraints placed on females.
The actual “tampon tax” would, at most, be ten percent of the total “lifetime cost.” That would amount to $180 for the lifetime tax burden. Estimating a period of need (excuse the pun) of 40 years, the tax would be $4.50 per year. And, dividing by 12, it would be less than $0.40 per month, or about the price of a cappuccino every year.
Forty cents is not a terribly onerous burden for most people. The cost of ink to print the article was probably close to that. Let’s pick a serious problem upon which to expend our energies. It is pretty clear that the states are not balancing their budgets on the backs of menstrual females.
Maybe we should have Obamacare or Medicaid cover hygiene materials. That would be a more meaningful pursuit, and with a $45 per year benefit, would help poor people to leave poverty. (Sorry, could not resist.)
Tampon Tax
Is “over exaggerate” a legitimate descriptor? If you exaggerate, can you do more than that? If it is, the letter on “tampon tax” in Monday’s Tennessean (10/1) is an overexaggeration. ( I coined the word to emphasize its import.) The key issue was that feminine hygiene products are taxed. The impact of this tax was quoted as $1800 per person over a lifetime. The author did admit that the entire cost was not the tampon itself, but did not carry the analysis any farther.
The argument that this is a tax on a vagina was “colorful” or at least descriptive, but highly inflammatory. “Just because they are women, they have to pay more.” Well, the actual complaint is not with the tax, but on the cultural and hygienic constraints placed on females.
The actual “tampon tax” would, at most, be ten percent of the total “lifetime cost.” That would amount to $180 for the lifetime tax burden. Estimating a period of need (excuse the pun) of 40 years, the tax would be $4.50 per year. And, dividing by 12, it would be less than $0.40 per month, or about the price of a cappuccino every year.
Forty cents is not a terribly onerous burden for most people. The cost of ink to print the article was probably close to that. Let’s pick a serious problem upon which to expend our energies. It is pretty clear that the states are not balancing their budgets on the backs of menstrual females.
Maybe we should have Obamacare or Medicaid cover hygiene materials. That would be a more meaningful pursuit, and with a $45 per year benefit, would help poor people to leave poverty. (Sorry, could not resist.)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)