Earned Income Credit - Savior or Disservice?

The Earned Income Tax Credit is a refundable credit in the United States available to low-income taxpayers. In order to claim the credit the taxpayer(s) (plural if Married Filing Jointly) must have earned income and having children comes in handy. By earned income that simply means you have to have income from work to claim the credit; you cannot use unemployment income, interest income, etc. to claim eligibility.

The intent behind the credit is to encourage individuals to find viable employment; as well as to offer financial assistance to struggling individuals and families. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities the credit, "Lifted 6.6 million individuals out of poverty in 2009, including more than 3 million children." On the surface this sounds great, but are we doing a disservice to the nation and its taxpayers with this credit?

The IRS reported recently 24.8 million tax returns were filed with an overall monetary award of $50.7 billion to the eligible taxpayers. That is billions ... with a 'b.'

There is no doubt that many of the 24.8 million collecting the Earned Income Credit are hard working individuals who could use a little extra boost, but there are millions who abuse the system so much that the IRS has made a special emphasis of reducing the Earned Income Credit amounts overpaid to individuals providing fraudulent information.

Incomes are mis-reported (easy to do for self-employed folks) so that they can maximize the credit they receive. When taxpayers are receiving a large refundable credit for the EIC, there is little incentive to work more hours because more hours equals more work, more taxes taken out, and less received in Earned Income Credit. The credit is often viewed as an entitlement that taxpayers expect as the least this country can do to give them help because they're struggling ... and they have kids to feed. Many families only have one parent work because the money they receive from their refund is enough to help them get by ... which many are okay with doing ... simply getting by ... particularly while the taxpayer who doesn't get much of a refund is footing the bill.

Sure many Americans struggle financially and live below the poverty line. How many of those however, made conscious decisions to throw away a free education that could have paved the way to greatness, took up a life of crime which now leaves them unemployable, had unprotected sex and bore children they could not afford? Is throwing money at them the solution, or does that simply prolong or even increase the problem? Many will contend that many of these individuals didn't have a chance growing up because of the environment they grew up in. Okay, why is poor parenting before them a tax burden for the rest of the country? It's called a cycle, a cycle of poverty ... and throwing money at it simply does not combat the problem.

This is a tough issue, particularly because there are children involved. Having children is the one act in this country people can do without training, certifcation, or someother blessing from the government or society (nor financial stability or a future full of financial promise)... but it's a problem the government is forced to support.

Perhaps a different topic altogether, but should the state have an ability to claim children it will end up having to support anyways, to provide for other couples? Should we become more like-(ahem)-China, and govern childbirth?

Due to the economic situation in the United States, the government simply prolongs the need to make difficult, perhaps drastic, decisions. Is there a point where the United States allows Charles Darwin to work his magic? I realize this may not be a popular topic, or viewpoint, but times like these call for people to debate tough issues seriously. Throwing money at a problem ... is that common sense?

Occupy Wall Street vs. Tea Party

The summer of 2010 found the Tea Party movement sweeping across the United States. Men such as Glenn Beck held rallies and the media was abuzz with stories about the dying support Americans had for its Congress. The movement felt Congress was not serious about fixing the status quo when it came to hardship issues including high unemployment, oppressive gas prices, rising food prices, excessive welfare and more.

Fast forward to the fall of 2011 and all the rage is about the Occupy movements across the United States. While rallies have been held in places such as Oakland, Cal. the focus is on rallies of protesters in Washington, DC as well as on Wall Street. Similar to the Tea Party movement, the Occupy movement is not content with the status quo and seeks change in the government as well as structure of our economy to better the lives of the masses. However, the similarities end there.

The Occupy Wall Street movements find protesters willing to antagonize law enforcement, desecrate the property of others, and stand up to the cruel injustices imposed on us by our government by throwing what amounts to one big temper tantrum. Proponents of the Occupy Wall Street movements proclaim the protesters are the answer to the Tea Party movement which is too closely aligned with "the right." Tea Party affiliations with conservatives means the Tea Party is guilty by association with the fat cats of the Republican Party which stands for the status quo because their wealth is made off of the impoverished conditions of the masses.

What the Occupy Wall Street movements fail to realize is that Congress as a whole represents the status quo; and that it's Congress as a whole that is failing to act in the interest of the masses. After all the abundant and unnecessary wealth is not a concept based on party lines. A CNBC slideshow and a Roll Call list of the 112th Congress shows that seven (7) of the top ten (10) wealthiest members of Congress are Democrats. From Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) worth an estimated $45 million to Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) worth a reported $193 million. Within that group is also Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV) whose family made a fortune off of corporate greed and is reported to be the benefactor of various government subsidies for his property in West Virginia.

Here is where the Occpy Wall Street movements need to take a page from the book of Tea Party strategy. If the Occupy Wall Streeters are serious about producing change, they need to stop the whining and destruction and remember the most powerful tool they posses--strength in numbers at the polls. The Tea Party made great strides during the interim election of 2010 by knocking out or threatening many incumbents. Enough Tea Party candidates were elected their bloc was large enough to wreak havoc with the epic struggle of raising the debt ceiling.

Voting out every single incumbent in Congress will immediately change the status quo while instilling the belief in future sessions of Congress that the citizens truly are tired and want the issues fixed now. Senators and Congressman may be more concerned about fixing problems than playing politics to cater to votes in order to maintain their ~ $135,000 salary that the masses who truly feel the rise in food prices, gas prices, unemployment, etc. could dream about.

To bring it home, while the Occupy Wall Street gangs across the U.S. are supposed to be the anti-Tea Party, they need to learn from the Tea Party that change to the status quo starts at the polls.

Funerals + Protesters = Supreme Court Ruling

For the past several years Westboro Baptist Church gained notoriety as the institution affiliated with individuals who were found protesting the policies of the United States. These protests were, and continue to be, in close vicinity of funerals of U.S. soldiers who died overseas in combat. The message being sent by the protests is the servicemen are dying overseas because of the sins committed by the United States through supporting/tolerating homosexuality, and according to one report, for tolerating Catholicism which is kind of interesting as the Catholic religion is against homosexuality as well.

The church was sued by Albert Snyder, the father of a fallen Marine, Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder. The dignity of the funeral was disrupted by protestors who carried signs claiming, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "Semper Fi, Fags," etc. The father sued on the basis of emotional distress incurred because of the protests. A lower court awarded Mr. Snyder ~ $10 million which was later cut in half. An appeals court overturned the judgement and ruled that Mr. Snyder needed to pay the legal fees incurred by Westboro Baptist Church to defend itself in his suit. Of course the ruling from the appellate court was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Many hoped the Supreme Court would rule in favor of the grieving father. Most of this sentiment was founded on the disgust of people protesting at someone's funeral, an extremely solemn and private affair. Some argued the Constitution guarantees free speech. While that is true, one must remember that free speech is not an absolute in reality. Advocating violence verbally, yelling "fire" in a crowded place when there is no danger, or a minor openly cussing in a school are three examples of how speech is indeed limited. There was optimism the Supreme Court would rule that speech is limited when it causes emotional damage upon others.

Recenlty the United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in the several years-old case. While the ruling may not be a surprise, the overwhelming majority vote may have been. The justices ruled 8-1 in favor of Westboro Baptist Church. Essentially the justices upheld the belief that free speech must be upheld despite the emotional toll inflicted on others. Constitutionally speaking this is how I believe the Supreme Court justices had to rule. They are to base their rulings on the U.S. Constitution, our supreme law of the land, and this country's founding fathers truly believed free speech was critical to a lasting, successful democracy.

I whole-heartedly agree the actions by the protestors affiliated with Westboro Baptist Church are insanely disgusting, and perhaps a special place awaits them when it's their time. The Supreme Court however, would set a dangerous precedent if they essentially ruled that individuals are not entitled to speech that hurts the feelings of others. Unfortunately in a free society you must take the good with the bad. A ruling in the other way would arguably send this country on a one-way, non-stop ticket from democracy to authoritarian.

Mr. Snyder, I truly feel sorry for your loss and the events you have endured since--nor do I support the message or timing/location of the protests; but I disagree with your comments and believe this was a ruling based on ... Common Sense.

Immigration Quotas, Are We There Yet?

Immigration is undoubtedly a hot topic that is all over the news. In Missouri an American couple is in jeopardy of losing a child they adopted through the adoption process because the child's biological mother argues that she never willingly offered her child up for adoption. The child's mother is an illegal immigrant who was arrested following a raid of a poultry-processing plant on the basis of identity fraud because she used a stolen social security number to obtain the job. While incarcerated, her brother and sister cared for the boy before turning to others for help with the child. A clergy couple offered assistance which ultimately led to the child being placed in the care of Seth and Melinda Moser who after one year asked for, and received an okay to legally adopt the child. The story in greater detail can be found here. Apparently the boy only speaks English, was with the Moser family over two of his four years alive, and is an American citizen. His mother only speaks Spanish, is an illegal immigrant, but may have an argument with regard to how her son was taken. Questions arise with regard to the rights of an illegal immigrant and keeping a child, as well as the rights of a prisoner not losing a child.

The other issue involves the State of Arizona who is leading a charge to bring fundamental change to determining citizenship by promoting the idea that birth on U.S. soil does not constitute automatic citizenship. The change is to remove the automatic citizenship of children born in the United States to illegal immigrants. The hope is that such a change may minimize some of the migration of immigrants to the United States for the purpose of having a child born on American soil, or an easier ability for the United States to forcibly deport both the mother as well as the child.

My prediction is we will see a dramatic rise in cases that significantly impact how this nation will treat and handle immigration. My question is, is it time for quotas on immigration? When I say quotas you can also include establish a war against illegal immigration as big or larger than the war on drugs. Is it that bad of a problem? I do not discount the work ethic of thousands of immigrants who come here to the United States, and as far as our nation is concerned, an exchange program where the U.S. can export its deadbeats is probably the best solution.

This nation was founded on immigrants. This is true. My ancestors were immigrants, also true. One can't compare then to now however. Land was more available, natural resources were perhaps more available. The tax system was not quite instituted or perfected (if you could call it perfect) so Americans were not spending their earned income to support others outside of their own family. When immigrants landed on Ellis Island they were required to possess a certain amount of money in a way to show they could support themselves as they acclimated to their new nation. Today immigrants who arrive in the United States are able to use may services without having to provide support. For example, throughout much of the nation most states cannot inquire about a family's immigration status when enrolling children for school. The children of illegal immigrants are able to attend taxpayer-funded public schools. Those who come without regard for our laws are still somehow allowed and encouraged to receive the benefits of law-abiding taxpayers. With regard to medical care, individuals requiring medical attention are able to receive it from medical facilities without regard to whether or not they belong and can provide some financial compensation for the services.

As I said earlier, I do not discount the work-ethic of the many who come here legally, provide for their families and contribute to society. I have witnessed far too many waste the opportunities this country provides and would encourage an exchange program where those who are willing are welcome with open arms and we export those deemed a drain on society. Until that plan is arranged, given the state of our economy and the increased cuts to government programs ... would it be financially wise to close the borders with respect to any individuals seeking permanent residence in the United States until this nation can find away to support the current population?

Educating America, You Get What You Pay For!

As school cafeterias all across the nation serve milk to students, plenty of eyes and ears are turned toward the dairy state of Wisconsin where teachers are quite vocal in their opposition to attacks on their profession. Other public sector employees are engaged in battle with teachers against a state administration that is vowing to reduce the impact of unions and collective bargaining agreements. My hope is this boils over into a greater debate across the nation on the education system in America. The system is broken, and it does need fixing.

I do not disagree that states are facing financial difficulties and must make bold decisions. I do believe though, that if this nation is supposed to re-claim its dominance in the world, it must happen through the public school system. President Obama stressed in his State of the Union address (not that I put much stock into those speeches anymore) the importance of becoming a nation that is innovative and productive--stuff that begins in the classroom. Our nation will not succeed, will not achieve, will not prevail until an overhaul of the education system in America takes place after a deep soul-searching endeavour about what education should look like in America.

Educational opportunity is where we get the "opportunity" that belongs in "Land of Opportunity." Each child, and this includes non-legal residents in many locations, is entitled to a free, public education in this country. This is where each child gets a chance to earn an education that can and will eventually open doors to a fruitful life in a capitalistic society. That is, if this struggling nation can hold on to the idea that it wants to remain a capitalistic society. Each student in every single class of mine heard the same words come out of the teachers mouth, saw the same notes go on the chalkboard, had the same opportunity I did within the classroom. Yes, the support at home is uniquely different from student to student. Circumstances at one home may not foster an environment suited for homework and study while another home may include a parent who sits down each evening with their child to review school work. Unfortunately, this is life--their are factors that make it inevitably more difficult for one to succeed opposed to another. At what point though, do we teach these children (particularly when they can comprehend this in their teenage years preparing for the real world) that just because school was harder for them does not necessarily mean they will get a free pass in life.

Students often times fall into a vicious cycle where their parent(s) could care less about their child getting a good education, so the students themselves place no value in education. Unfortunately, far too many parents only care that their child attends school to avoid any legal issues with regard to mandatory attendance. Far too many of these families are the recipients of some sort of government assistance (Public Housing, Food Stamps, Medicaid, WIC, etc.). The message being sent is that if you waste your educational opportunity, its okay because the taxpayers will help provide for you. If you have children you can't afford because you are unemployable, the taxpayers will ensure the child and a parent or two are housed, fed, afforded medical care, etc. Where is the incentive for anyone living in this condition to preach to their child the importance of studying hard and working hard to earn the things that can be received for nothing?

Educators are increasingly turning into glorified babysitters. I agree there are millions of students who want and care for their education; and those students are worth every ounce of energy that goes into their education. However as the generations breed, and our social norms evolve away from conservative values, classrooms are disrupted continuously with disrespect and far too often a blatant disregard for the rules. Our increasingly sympathetic culture provides students with second chances, third chances, tenth chances, and beyond before effectively removing the student from the learning environment. Policies are in place to keep all students in school so they learn and go on to college.

America needs to wake up and get serious if it seriously wants to move ahead in the world. First, by significantly reducing the number of chances a habitual offender has before being removed from school the school can spend its energy and resources on those who have the want and desire to succeed at a level this nation wants to be globally competitive. Secondly, and perhaps the most drastic and heartless, by removing public assistance from those who throw away their taxpayer-funded "opportunity" in school, we can restore the importance of the education system in America. Making each individual responsible for their future and that of their families, ensuring everyone must bear their own burden simply sounds like common sense.


*This is not a post about eliminating all public assistance (recently laid off losing unemployment, food stamps, etc.). This is a post about Americans who sqaunder their educational opportunity*

Football, Freeways and Free Speech!

As time passes, one may not realize their Constitution guarantees the Freedom of Speech within the Bill of Rights. Our nation was founded on a principle guranteeing us the right to criticize others, particularly our government, through established rights such as the freedoms of speech and press. Apparently our government is okay with censoring speech in various forms--even speech that does not impede on the lives of others. The following encroachment on these rights is but one of many examples illustrating the lack of Common Sense in governing via the Constitution.

Dale Atkeson received a letter from the California Department of Motor Vehicles demanding he surrender his license plate. Apparently the message on his vanity plate was deemed too offensive to be displayed on his vehicle. Apparently Eugene Herrod of the Southern California Indian Center searched vehicle registration records in his spare time for vanity tags he might deem offensive. I might say he ought to find a new hobby, but to each their own I suppose. You may be asking, 'Just what did his license plate say?' Drum-roll please. The license plate in question read, "1 REDSKN."

Herrod's complaint was the term "redskin" is offensive to Native Americans, and the CA DMV removed other vanity plates with ethnic slurs toward other groups. I will say, if the precedent was established, at least they are trying to be consistent about it. That said, the precedent set was wrong to begin with. While many Native Americans support the removal of the term "redskin," others are not bothered about it. So one man's complaint is enough to have the government encroach your freedom of speech.

The kicker of the story is this. Dale Atkeson played professional football for the Washington Redskins. How dare he put his pride of playing for the Washington Redskins on display for the public to see? The Redskins were a significant part of this man's life ... but the CA DMV and one man's crusade proved fruitful in bringing shame upon it.

You play professional football for the Redskins but cannot display your pride ... so much for free speech! Imagine how limited our vocabularies would be if we every person was allowed to select one word they deemed offensive. Sticks and stones may break our bones, but words ... yes, they will be censored!

Health Care - What Makes It Wrong

A roommate of mine from college made the remark that Social Studies teachers across the U.S. had an easy lesson plan for tomorrow--the birth and death of the United States.

Birth: July 4, 1776
Death: March 21, 2010

July 4th is a common date used to represent the birth of the United States. Of course others may point out that we didn't become the United States of America until New Hampshire, the 9th state, ratified the U.S. Constitution on June 21, 1788. You get the point however; the emphasis lies with today's date when the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass the controversial health care bill.

Many may wonder why I'm distraught over this measure considering my wife and I don't make enough to meet the income level where taxes will be raised to support this bill. The concerns I have relate to precedent being established as well as the principles involved with being an American.

Medicaid is going to be expanded, meaning more individuals will qualify to receive government assistance. A deal was made to exempt Nebraska from all new Medicaid expenses, but instead of special deals for certain states the U.S. government is going to cover 100% of increased Medicaid costs for every state beginning in 2014 but reducing that to 90% beginning in 2020. To help you understand when you read anything that states the government is going to pay for it, substitute "U.S. government" for "YOU!" The federal government gets its funds from you through tax dollars. When the government is expanding aid, that means YOU are providing more of your money for others.

Where is the incentive to succeed in school and receive a college education or specific trade skill that will serve you well in the marketplace if the government will take care of you? I mean, if "I" will take care of you? Those who have no desire to go to college, or even complete high school, and are more than content working minimum wage jobs--hey, to each their own! If they are happy and feel fulfilled in life then congrats to them! But WHY should others have to cover their medical costs??? Why should the government FORCE others to pick up their slack?

Why do I work hard? So I can earn a good salary, be able to pay for quality health insurance, etc. I have worked hard to earn what I have! What is so difficult about running a nation centered around that concept ... if you want it, go work for it! And you better take your education seriously because that is where it begins! Students lose any sense of consequence if dropping out doesn't have real, severe consequences.

Anyhow, have you heard about these "Cadillac" insurance plans? That's right, our lawmakers are going to tax insurance companies 40% for high-end health insurance plans. Who do you think those added costs will be passed onto? You guessed it, you! So Congress is penalizing you for choosing to equip your family with the best health insurance out there! This reminds me of how the government taxes interest you earn in a savings account--penalized for being responsible. The thinking, so I read, is that employers will save money by choosing less-expensive (syn. worse?) health insurance plans ... money which will be passed onto the employees with higher wages!!!!! Let's all take that to the bank! Who dreams this up? In a capitalistic market, lawmakers are assuming companies will provide higher wages opposed to padding the profit margin following lean economic times. Again, the assumption is the employees will see the extra cash thereby paying more in taxes helping offset the cost of the health insurance program.

I have no problems with those who believe the government should subsidize health insurance for everyone ... that's a noble idea. Common Sense should tell us that if that's your charitible cause, donate more of your income to Congress to put toward these programs. Americans should not be penalized for giving their own family the best health coverage out there nor should they be forced to provide health coverage for others.