Are Americans Overtaxed?

In the presentation, I had the topic on Americans being overtaxed. Americans believe that we are being overtaxed, because how much taxes is taken out of salaries and tax burdens on income, property, and sales. The U.S has a progressive tax, which tax rates increase as the taxable amount increases. I have compared the United State of America to other countries tax marginal rates, citizens buying power and Social Security tax rates with there benefits. The U.S has an average marginal rate of 29% the lowest out of all the countries compared to other countries with marginal rates 31.2% and higher up until  Belgium with highest marginal rate of 54.9%. The example used for comparison is a middle manger in the U.S, they have a buying power of 79,100 euros compared to Nordic countries that are not one of the top ten countries with the highest relative buying power and they have high taxes. The Social Security rates in the United States is 6.2% for employers and employees making 12.4% Social Security tax. Compared to Belgium and Denmark, employers and employees pay a total of 48.07% Social Security tax in Belgium and 30% Social Security tax in Denmark. The U.S Social Security tax rate is the lowest out of the three countries compared and most other countries. In conclusion, the Americans of the United States are not over taxed. The U.S has a lower average marginal tax rate including the tax brackets increase gradual every year. The U.S citizens' have more buying power than any other countries except for the countries above the U.S. And last the U.S has the lowest Social Security tax rate compared to Belgium and Denmark and most other countries with marginal tax rates higher than the United States. So the United States progressive tax system is not overtaxing Americans, the taxes are about right with our growing economy and budget spending.






Sources: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2013/03/14/are-americans-over-taxed/
               http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/tax-brackets.aspx
               http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/flattax.asp
               http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1011/countries-with-the-highest-and-lowest-   taxes.aspx
               http://www.cnbc.com/id/49521672
               http://www.belgium.be/en/family/social_security_in_belgium/
               http://www.taxindenmark.com/article.65.html

Useful links
               http://www.forbes.com/

A video on Are Americans Overtaxed
              http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/04/12/are_americans_overtaxed.html

Unit 5 Web Post

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/13/politics/congress-amtrak-funding-crash/index.html

House committee passes bill that cuts Amtrak funding after crash

In the article, after the Amtrak train derailment incident the Republican of the House Committee voted 30-21 to reduce grants to Amtrak by $252 million that will cut only there Amtrak Capital Spending. The Democrats attempted to increase funding for Amtrak from 1 billion to 2.4 billion dollars in an effort for passenger rail service, but the Republicans argue that funding the Amtrak would result in an “offset by cuts elsewhere in the budget”. Democrats and some Republicans are in opposition for funding cuts. Democrat Rep. Peter DeFazio from Oregon and Republican Mario Diaz-Balart from Florida both say that the Republican should first know what happen in the Amtrak incident before responding to make an appropriate respond to the event. As well the White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest mention if there should be need of investments in infrastructure that they should do so. The National Transportation Safety Board, Federal Railroad Administration and FBI are investigating and inspecting the derailment of the train that they know rolled through a curve. This brought up the focus on U.S fund and maintaining infrastructures. The committees involved are the U.S House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Material Subcommittee.

This article involves public policy, because it involves the Republicans course of action after the Amtrak incident and it involves public services. As said by both parties there should first wait to receive information before making a decision. As well I agree with the democrat on attempting to fund the infrastructure for better service. There are many other infrastructures not only Amtrak that needs funding in Pennsylvania. Though, I agree with the Republicans on reducing grants to Amtrak, because if there is a mistake there should be negative consequences. Though, the Democrats are trying to increase funding to have the problem fixed and for citizens to receive services. Again I agree with the Democrats, because Congress members’ duty is to make the American citizens railroad services safe and safer after incidents like this one.

A video of on the Amtrak incident

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/13/politics/congress-amtrak-funding-crash/index.html

Unit 4 Judiciary

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/06/opinion/knepper-judicial-activism/index.html

 

President Obama and chorus of commentators, activists and politicians find that judicial activism is an issue. President Obama feared that U.S Supreme Court would rule and overturn his signature law the Affordable Care Act.  The article begins to explain the ‘big picture’ that the President and others are implying that judicial activism is an issue are ‘painting’ that judiciary branch are “one of an imperial judiciary routinely snatching important policy decisions out of the hands of elected representatives.” The article goes on to explaining why this is not true and not the issue. The first reason was that from 1954-2002 the Supreme Court ‘struck down’ two-third of one percent of passed laws by Congress taking down two federal laws per year. In conclusion judicial activism being an issue is ‘overblown’ and that judicial activism isn’t the problem. The real issue is “constitutionality of legislative and executive actions, and one that leads to ever-expanding government power.” An example the article used support this is the 11^th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals and noticing Congress going over there authority and explaining that "the Constitution requires judicial engagement, not judicial abdication." The article later concluded that Supreme Court striking down the Affordable Care Act won’t do much to affect balance of power.

I agree with idea that President Obama and other people going on with judicial activism issue are using as a substitute to avoid the thought if the legislative and executive actions are constitutional. My reasoning is there have been a lot of news about Congress and the president decisions throughout being president including the decision and dramatic/serious events going on between Congress and the President. And also in support for judicial activism is useful since the constitution sometimes doesn’t have the answers to solving social issues.

 

Video of President Obama talking about judicial activism in 2012

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=president+obama+and+judicial+activism+video&FORM=VIRE4&adlt=strict#view=detail&mid=0464B89D42E5648D1E370464B89D42E5648D1E37

 

Make a deal with Iran — and Congress

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/make-a-deal-with-iran--and-congress/2015/04/07/1c9c3622-dd49-11e4-acfe-cd057abefa9a_story.html

In the article Congress is working on making a law that will allow them to work with president on the Iran nuclear deal. The problem on making this law is that the Republican majority and democrat minority shows that the bill may be vetoed due to the number of Republicans both in the Senate and House. The bill that will give Congress some authority over foreign deals is called Corker Bill from the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate R. It has gone through many provisions. The original was Congress can approve or disapprove a deal with a foreign country and disapprove deal will be automatically blocked. The “new language” added to the bill is allowing a deal to go into effect for 60 days then vote yes or no decision. There are sanction laws that exist that the president can waive on his own but is unsustainable. A provisions of offensive of the administration could have been requiring to periodically checking Iran for support of terrorism against United States. Senator Bob Mendez loses role as ranking member of committee losing the provision.

I believe it is a good an idea to pass a law that would allow Congress to weigh-in foreign deals with the president. The 60 day in effect of a deal gives a president a chance to make a deal and not have Congress disapproving the deal after proposal. This article is a good example of a committee having a bill revised before making it to the both senate and house. The Senator Bob Mendez of the Foreign Relations Committee could have made the provision for the Obama administration but was unable to due to losing his role.

Unit 4 The Presidency

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/us/senate-panel-votes-to-approve-loretta-lynch-as-attorney-general.html?_r=0

President Barack Obama had nominated Loretta Lynch to be appointed as U.S. Attorney General. The full Senate has not approved of the President’s appointment yet. Loretta Lynch is going through the Senate approval, she has already got the approval of the Senate panel and is going to the full Senate. But the Republicans are voting against Loretta Lynch approval as U.S. Attorney General for the following reason. The Republicans believe that Loretta Lynch will support and approve of the legality of President Obama’s executive action “on immigration, the same issue that has tied up the approval of funding for the Department of Homeland Security.” Additionally the Senate committee has discussed if she would or would not defend the president’s unconstitutional action and have ask her question about the previous attorney general policy and what she is planning as U.S. Attorney General. They Republicans of the Senate committee have asked these question to find a sufficient answer to vote against her nomination. The article says that if she were to get approved by the Senate panel and go through the full Senate even if a Republican filibuster the Senate would stop the filibuster with a vote.

I believe that Senate Republicans are not evaluating Loretta Lynch for her knowledge to be the next U.S Attorney General. They Republicans are accusing her of supporting the president decision like a trial and she has not been approved as Attorney General yet. But though this is a good example of how senate approval process of a presidential appointment.

http://www.msnbc.com/melissa-harris-perry/watch/loretta-lynch-delay--has-real-consequences--419540035764

Unit 3 article

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/14/pledges.interest.groups/index.html

Politicians' pledges show interest groups' sway

In the article, some political analyst use an example of what a pledge can do and what the advantages and disadvantages pledges have for politicians. The example used is the Taxpayer Protection pledge, which is preventing comprise for tax increase accompanying with spending cuts. This pledge is created by the Americans for Tax Reform group, there pledge is signed (mostly signed by Republicans) by 235 House of Representatives and 41 Senators. The President of Americans for Tax Reform Grover Norquist is quoted in the article that "Once you keep putting a tax increase on the table, spending cuts disappear." And that "If someone says that this makes it difficult to make a big budget deal (with tax increases), that's the point…" This cause and effect statements is what the Taxpayer Protection pledge is about. The pledge has affected the decision between the Republicans, Democrats and the President Barack Obama discussion on the deal to trim the United States’ $14 trillion debt. The administration officials mention as well that the debit needed to be raised by August to avoid partial default loan obligation.  The Republicans wanted spending cuts as there solution to the United States trim on debt. Though they needed and wanted Democrats’ approval and entitlement reform. President Obama wanted a new tax revenue, which would end tax cuts for wealthy Americans in 2013 combined with spending cuts to reduce debt by 4 trillion over the next 10-12 years. The Republicans response was they won’t sign on to any tax increase.

These example the political analyst used mentioned many advantages and disadvantages to making pledges and having them signed by politicians. The advantages to politicians for signing I they believe they gain credibility, which leads them to signing a pledge in the first place. Also signing a pledge is making a promise, which for candidates they get support by appealing to great numbers of voters. As well and most importantly signing a pledge is voters get the chance to see elected officials maintaining position and making difficult decision. The disadvantage to politicians is if they break a pledge they make to an interest group, then the interest group will be prepared to announce a ‘deviation’ of a signee to the public. Also if politician wants to be a presidential candidate, they would spend their campaign defending and moving away from the issue. Lastly if the pledge is broken, the politician will lose support and lose being elected. I believe that a politicians signing a pledge with an interest group is not a really good idea. And the reason for this is like the Taxpayer Protection pledge, it can negatively affect a compromise that can do well for the people. If the Republicans and other groups did not sign this pledge, they could have had a bipartisan and got the $14 trillion dollar trim deal done and over with.

Here is a video after the Republicans and other Congress members signed the pledge. The video is an interview of the President of Americans for Tax Reform Grover Norquist.

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/bestoftv/2011/11/21/exp-grover-norquist.cnn

 

 

Unit 2 Political Parties, Interest Groups, and Mass Media

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/16/politics/cnn-poll-isis-obama-approval/index.html

On February 16, 2015 CNN/ORC released a poll involving the President Barack Obama and his decision on handling ISIS. The poll has 1,027 people interviewed; some were interviewed through landlines and some through cellular phone. The poll included white people and African Americans. The question asked was “Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling on terrorism…, ISIS, the Islamic militant group that controls some areas of Iraq and Syria…, foreign affairs…, the situation in Ukraine.., and the security of the nation’s electronic information…” and other question involving Congress, Presidents authority and etc. In the end, the survey showed most percentages of approval to the Presidents handling and other decisions like the President having authority over the military is losing support from the public. The margin of sample error of the poll is 3%.

The poll involving President Barack Obama against ISIS is scientific and accurate, because it has two characteristics for an accurate poll, random sampling and the wording of their question preventing influence to the person answer being interviewed. Few other characteristics are the total of people interviewed 1,027 people, which is a good amount of people being interview for an accurate poll. The results of the poll from the public show it has stability, because it has not changed much from the previous survey with the same question from a few months ago. Also the poll shows that about half of the people in the United States support the President Barack Obama’s decision against ISIS.