Thoughts on Mid Term Voting Choices

I am writing this blog post in the closing days before the midterm Elections.  I voted early two weeks ago.  Over the past two weeks I’ve watched hundreds of candidate messages and ads on TV and received dozens of candidate mailings, from candidates in both parties.  I am struck by two things:

1.  I would estimate that 3 of every 4 messages do not contain positive messages about WHAT policies they would enact to improve our state or our country; they are focused on negative messages about the other candidate or party;

2.  The messages that are positive provide no basis to understand HOW the promises being made would be enacted.

So I am wondering … is this the best the world’s greatest democracy can do in selecting its leaders?  Don’t citizens deserve better than this?  Doesn’t our country deserve better?

I am an Independent voter, unaligned with either political party.  I work to research the positions of individual candidates and to understand the problems and issues impacting the country, and vote independently of party.  Given that background, I offer to share with humility, why this year I chose to vote for Democrat candidates for my state officers and representatives and for my Federal representatives. 

I fully realize that my life experience are not the same as millions of others, and that my conclusions on the best approaches to the problems and issues we face may not be relevant to everyone.  I try to develop beliefs about the best policies to address the key issues we face based on objective facts, analysis and history as to what approaches have worked in the past.  I do not have any other ideology than the ideology of “what works” for the country. I do offer this thinking in the face of negative, false and incomplete messaging, hoping that you might find it is worthwhile input to your own decision on election day. 

Here is my thinking on the key issues that determined my own decisions:

1.  The Republicans Will Not Protect Social Security Benefits

    Ø  You are hearing that Social Security and Medicare “entitlements” are the major cause 

              our unsustainable deficit.  But these programs were set up to be self-funding, not paid 

              out of personal or business income taxes.  I believe they should and can be kept that 

              way.

        The Republicans are publicly stating that if they hold the majority in Congress after the 

        midterm elections, they will cut these benefits by about 20% to help reduce the deficit.          But while it is true that annual SS tax receipts will fall below annual SS benefit 

        payments, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY in either 2019 or 2020, what you are 

        not hearing is that there was a $2.8-$2.9 TRILLION dollar surplus of SS 

        contributions during the years that SS tax receipts exceeded SS benefit 

        payments.  That surplus was “borrowed” to offset spending above income and other 

        tax income over many decades, under the leadership of both parties.

        It also appears that the Republicans plan to just cancel out that surplus, not “return” it 

        to the SS account to be used to fund SS benefits, offsetting the annual shortfall in 

        annual SS tax receipts versus SS benefit expenses.  The Republican announced 

        plans mean they will not only take and not return those SS contributions to the 

        SS account for SS benefit payments, they plan to cut the benefit payment 

        expenses to be in balance with current SS tax income.  To me, this is pretty close 

        to criminal malpractice by Congress ... or embezzlement.

        How hard is it to retain benefits and sustain the self-funding nature of Social Security?  

v  First, if the $2.8-$2.9 Trillion in the “borrowed” surplus is used to offset the shortfall in benefit payments versus tax payments, the solvency of the SS account would be sustained until about 2035. 

  

v  Second, If the current cap in income upon which SS taxes are assessed is lifted,  without any increase in the SS tax rate, this single action could keep the SS account in balance until about 2090.  And concurrently, if the age of retirement continues to increase slowly as it is now, by about 2-3 months every year, the permanent solvency of Social Security AT THE CURRENT TAX RATE and BENEFIT LEVEL would be essentially guaranteed.

2.  The Republicans will not provide access to health care insurance for people with pre-
     existing conditions with the existing protection for this benefit at no premium cost.
  ØYou may have heard that despite many Republican attempts to repeal the Affordable            Care Act, or Obamacare, without maintaining the same level of protection for pre-

            existing conditions that exists today … upwards of over 50 repeal attempts … the 

            Republicans now claim they will protect pre-existing conditions in a new tax plan.  

            However, the protections they have proposed are not the same as the existing 

            protections, which prevent a premium upcharge for such protection.   The 

            Republican “protection” involves essentially returning to the “high risk pools” that 

            existed before ACA became law, which involve higher premiums for this protection.  

            So if you are a family with at least one member with a pre-existing condition, such as 

            diabetes, any heart problem, any form of a cancer diagnosis even if in remission for 

            decades, then under the Republican plan you would very likely see a significant                     increase in premiums to have that protection., if you can find it covered at all.

3.  The Republican Focus on Tax Cuts Is Wrong for the Economy Long Term

    Ø  First, neither party has proposed a pro-growth economic plan that will succeed  

    over the long term, and will help build the economic security of the country.  Why?  The 

    single factor that drives 70% of GDP economic growth is middle class spending and 

    income. 

    Ø  The Republican policy to cut taxes to grow the economy focuses on a factor that may  

              have a 10% impact on the economy IF most of the benefits to companies were 

              being invested in factors that have a greater impact on economic growth … 

              such as sharing profits with the workers who have contributed to the record profits we 

              see today, or training and hiring new workers, investing in new products, opening new 

               markets, building new plants and upgrading current plants. 

         However, we’ve seen that over 80% of the benefit generated by the tax cuts is    

         going to profits that are being used to buying back stock, to grow stock prices 

         and return value to shareholders.  Returning some earnings to shareholders 

         consistently is of course important, BUT using money diverted from Federal revenues 

         with a resulting increase in borrowing and debt to buy back shares is a disaster for the 

         economy waiting to happen.

    Ø  The revenues we’ve lost from the tax cut are needed for investments that would 

              contribute to greater long term growth … repairing our infrastructure which is rated 

              as a “D”; supporting investments in training and retraining of under-employed 

              employees still suffering from the impacts of the 2009-2010 recession and 

              experiencing job loss due to technology and automation; and supporting incentives for 

              the new and innovative technologies and systems in energy and transportation that 

              can support doubling of the economy in the next 20 years.

 4.  The Affordable Care Act Should Be Repaired, Not Repealed and Replaced

    ØThe ACA has major cost problems for the working middle class and for small 

             business.  Yet, neither party has spent any serious effort to address these problems 

             via an ACA repair plan, since the ACA was passed 6 years ago and these problems 

             emerged.  But Democrats would be more likely to propose repairs to the ACA than 

             Republicans, based on past actions and current policy statements.

5.  We Need Comprehensive Immigration and Border Security Plans

     Ø  I think most Americans agree that we need BOTH a secure border AND a 

               comprehensive immigration  plan.   But I think the approach most Americans 

               would like to see is an approach that are based on an objective analysis of the key 

               drivers of the problems, and are focused on fixing those key drivers.  Here’s what 

               might make sense to most Americans:

              v  Most of these illegal crossings do not take place in open country, but at the legal 

             entry points, hidden in cars and trucks going through security.  So investing in new 

             technologies and approaches at these crossings would have more impact on these 

             problems than spending billions on a physical wall.   

        

                  A wall has been described as an 18^th century approach to a 21^st century problem.  

                  There are some places on the border where a wall makes sense. But in many 

                  places, technology and enhanced patrols will have more impact than a continuous 

                  wall across the entire border.

             

                  v   A comprehensive immigration plan that most Americans could likely support would 
              involve a balance between accounting for the both the human and economic 
              interests of immigration policy.  Quotes should be established each year for each 
              category of legal immigration based on the historic ability of the country to 
              assimilate immigrants into our society and industries, and the needed for skilled and             unskilled labor in our country.  Seasonal work visas and visas for skilled workers in
              key industries should be part of the plan.  A limited number of visas for immediate                 family members of current citizens and permanent residents should also be included.
        

         A path to legal status for undocumented immigrants who entered the country illegally             prior to the new policy, but who are supporting their families, have no violent or major           felony criminal records, and who are contributing to their communities.  The first step             in the path would be a temporary resident status, to evaluate their continued                         "good citizenship" behavior over some period of time.  A fine would be included as                 part of the penalty for violating past immigration laws.  

          The next step would be permanent resident status, with the added ability to bring 
               a limited number of immediate family members to America.  The final step would be              application for citizenship, which would be on a delayed timing basis versus those 
               who entered the US legally.  
     
              At the conclusion of the enhanced border security and review of legal status                           applications by undocumented immigrants, there would not be any further opportunity           for those entering the US illegally to ever achieve any legal status. or have access to
              status, or have access to any public services or employment.
              

                       v  Immigrants claiming asylum is a problem that should involve following international 

                 and existing US law and applying the lessons of history.  The Marshall Plan at the                  end of World War II invested in rebuilding the societies and economies of our                        allies AND our enemies and helped lead to decades of world peace among the                      World War II combatants.  That plan followed learning that after World War I,                          America did nothing to help allies or enemies rebuild, and extremism took root in                    many of these countries.  A global depression and World War II followed in less                    than a generation.

            We should develop a plan with the UN and the Organization of American States to 
                 invest in a Marshall Plan type approach to help build the societies and economies of 
                 countries in our hemisphere, and in troubled countries in the Middle East.  This is                  the only approach to this problem that is PROVEN to work to reduce or eliminate 
                 mass migrations from broken countries where ordinary residents have their lives                    and family welfare at risk. Concurrently, we should also develop a shared quota on
                  asylum seekers by the more developed societies and economies in our                                  hemisphere.  Each country should commit to work together to improve the                              processing of asylum seekers to minimize the time required to resettle asylum                        seekers and their families.  

6.  Democrat Control of the House Provides A Check on One Party Governing

     Ø   I think it's pretty obvious from behaviors of both parties over the past 10 years, that  
            when one party controls all branches of government, the country gets major governing 
            policies that are based on the needs and interests of the BASE voters of the majority             party, without considering how to accommodate the needs and interests of the 
            other party's voters. This means that these governing policies are addressing the                   needs of only about 35%-40% of the country, but ignoring the needs of 60% - 65%                 of the country.  Once elected, shouldn't we all expect leaders to govern by                             accommodating the needs and concerns of the voters from both parties, and                         most Americans?                

       Governing by one party is not how a representative democracy should operate ... this           is more like a one party dictatorship.  The "winner take all" approach to governing                 in our country today is perhaps one key reason why there is such angst, fear and                   anger toward the "other party" in our politics today.   So perhaps if the Democrats 
       control at least the House in 2019, there will be more of an incentive for Congress to             govern by working together.  Of course, total gridlock is also possible if the  parties still         refuse to work together.  But given the problems with one party governing we have 
       seen recently.  The Affordable Care Act and the Tax Cuts are policies which were                 passed by one party only and have been shown to have major problems when 
       implemented.  So a pretty good argument could be made that even gridlock might be             preferable for the country more one party governing.

       I hope this thinking is helpful to your voting decision.  Most importantly, very glad that             you are voting and willing to explore issues before making a voting choice.