Tag Archives: taxes

All Posts, budget, deficit, taxes

FEEDING OUR DINOSAURS

1 Comment

I was rambling around the house trying to mentally outline a column about tax policy when my wife asked me to fill the dinosaur feeder in our back yard.  Actually she called it a bird feeder but we’ve only recently learned that birds are evolutionary descendants of dinosaurs, so we haven’t adjusted our language.

Feeding a dinosaur is less complicated than revising the tax code.
Feeding a dinosaur is less complicated than revising the tax code.

Thinking about how dinosaurs became birds is easier than imagining the how American tax code could evolve into something as practical as a chicken, so I changed the subject and my day is already better.

For the dinosaurs, the transition took a long time – something in the neighborhood of 150 million years is a widely accepted estimate.  Dinosaurs didn’t need to elect a congress to create their future, they just adapted as best they could to changes in their environment, including the evolution of other animals and plants, and let nature take its course.  Judging from the number and variety of them now having brunch outside my window, the dinosaurs may be slow, but they have been successful.

We humans haven’t been around nearly as long as the dinosaurs, or even as long as the birds.  We’re evolutionary newcomers but most of us think we’re superior to the creatures sharing our back yards because we have sophisticated languages that we can speak and write to convey complicated ideas to future generations.  Our “superiority” has produced science, literature, mathematics, religion, art, music, clothing, big buildings (and the American tax code).

Along our evolutionary way, we created customary ways of doing things that allow our descendants to survive and thrive.  We build homes to shelter them.  We feed them, teach them, and keep them safe as best we can.  As I look around in my yard, I can see squirrels and dinosaurs (ok – birds) working at those same things.  It seems that evolution or creation (or God if you prefer) built the desire to do those things right into our DNA.  We are here today because our ancestors, going back millions of years, had successful families to care for their young.

As I watch the dinosaurs in my yard, they seem to be fully occupied in the present, the recent past and the near-term future.  They are building nests that will be temporary, eating, and enjoying active sex lives.  The squirrels still seem to be digging up some of last year’s acorns.  Mostly they are living in the present but any observer can see their values – the sense of right and wrong that will assure the success of their families and their coming generations.  Evolution rewards such behavior with survival and adaptation.

We humans expanded mutual support beyond family into neighborhoods, villages and cultures.  We specialized, filling particular roles that help the whole group.  Ants, bees, beavers, wolves, buffalo and others did that too and it worked for all of us.

With our long-term social memory, passed down by word of mouth and later in written form we humans are able to record our values as stories, religions, and laws.  We’ve learned to use those as organizing principles for large societies – even empires.  Incas, Masai, Cherokee, Egyptians, Chinese, Romans, and recently Americans organized themselves so that future generations could succeed. Their laws, customs and religions supported societies where future generations could thrive.  That appears to have worked for all of them.  But eventually some things need improvement.

The evolution of cultures seems to be a lot like the evolution of living species.  Some have been overrun by more powerful competitors.  Some fell prey to droughts, or natural disasters.  Some fell when they were unable or unwilling to support their families and societies so their young could thrive in future generations.  Dinosaurs became birds in order to thrive in a changing world.  Romans became Christians and brought much of the western world along in the process before their empire collapsed.   America emerged from that, much as birds emerged from dinosaurs – becoming a new creature that fed and supported each new generation toward ever greater success.

That, unfortunately, brings me back to the American tax code.  Our congress will soon begin debating it.  In our large and complicated nation, the tax code should collect resources from us and direct them toward creating a nation where all can achieve our potential and succeed together.  Will we use it to evolve as dinosaurs did?  Or will we become extinct?

 

All Posts, deficit, health, medicaid

Replacing Obamacare

3 Comments

President Trump and our Republican controlled congress have promised to quickly repeal and replace ObamaCare.  President Trump says that coverage will be better, cost will be lower, and everyone will be covered.

We should consider where we were before ObamaCare and where we are today as a basis for judging proposed replacements.  Using the years 2004 – 2009 as a baseline for how we were doing before ObamaCare and 2010 – 2015 as a measure of its effectiveness, here are some facts.

Each of the following statistics is for five years of change before and after ObamaCare.   All spending is inflation adjusted to 2010 dollars.

Below is similar cost data from a different source and a link that will allow you to browse a wealth of relevant information.

The cost of employer sponsored health plans has been growing slower since ObamaCare.
The cost of employer sponsored health plans has been growing slower since ObamaCare.

Evaluate performance data from the US and other developed nations HERE using tools developed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

 

 

Some other changes brought about by ObamaCare are:

  • Before ObamaCare, important screenings like colonoscopies and mammograms were unaffordable for many people.  Now they are covered without deductibles.
  • Insurance companies and employers can no longer deny coverage or charge more for pre-existing conditions.  Previously, cancer survivors, diabetics and others likely to need expensive care were uninsurable on most family budgets.
  • Lifetime limits on coverage were banned.
  • Mental health services are covered on the same basis as other medical and surgical services
  • Dependents can stay on parents’ coverage up to age 26.

ObamaCare is a success compared to what we had before it passed.  But health care costs are still rising faster than our economy is growing and we still have over 28 million uninsured Americans so more improvement is needed.

The ObamaCare insurance exchanges where individuals and small employers should be able to purchase affordable coverage are not consistently working well .  Millions of young, healthy Americans are not buying coverage as required by the law.  That leaves a disproportionate number of unhealthy and older people in these insurance pools.  In markets where that has happened, premiums have risen at double-digit rates and several insurance companies dropped out, leaving meager choices for consumers.

That problem leads directly to critical questions about replacing ObamaCare.  Will congress decide that it’s acceptable for some Americans to have no health benefits?  If everyone is going to have benefits, is there a less expensive alternative than Medicaid expansion?  If so, will it be included in the Republican replacement for ObamaCare?  If not, will it then be acceptable for doctors, hospitals and other health care providers to deny services to those who can’t pay?  To be very clear to free market friends, “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.”  If the ObamaCare replacement does not include a way to pay for care of the uninsured then either they will die without care or the cost will be built into your bills and insurance premiums.

There are proven ways to provide more care for less money while covering the entire population.  Every other developed nation has adopted one of them and they are all more cost-effective than ObamaCare.  They range from price controls to “medicare for all” or government operated health care similar to the British model.  All of them require a larger role for government and that seems to be the antithesis of Republican thinking.  President Trump said that no one should be required to buy health insurance.  At present it appears that he intends to provide something (health care) for everyone without requiring anyone to pay for it – a miracle of biblical proportion.

We can hope that the post-election hostility will wane in favor of intelligent consideration of how to replace or improve ObamaCare. It can be done if legislators and the President are willing to forego political rhetoric for what is practical.  If they are not, then both human and economic catastrophes are likely.

All Posts, budget, Congress, Constitution, taxes

It’s time to balance budgets

1 Comment

Although our election decided who will hold public offices, the issues that divide Americans remain unsettled.  Our political battlefield is strewn with social, economic, religious and geographic landmines ready to explode.  And it’s too early to know what a Trump-led Republican administration will be like.  Besides, election “winners” achieve mostly temporary victories because the “losing” side returns to fight another day.

In that unfortunate climate, vital responsibilities of government often go unattended.  Perhaps the best example is our decades-long and increasingly urgent need to balance federal budgets.  The last time we balanced our budget for more than two consecutive years was the eleven year period from 1920 through 1930.

If both conservative and liberal voters push for it, this might be a time when we could pass a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.  With that in mind, here’s my Balanced Budget Amendment idea.  It would force decisions on some issues that divide us, most notably taxes, health care and defense spending – maybe even uniting conservatives and liberals in support of practical ideas.  Here is the concept:

IDEAS FOR A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

The President must propose a balanced budget to the congress at least five months before the beginning of each fiscal year.

  1. Congress must pass a balanced budget and send it to the President for signature at least three months prior to the beginning of each fiscal year.
  2. If the President vetoes a budget approved by the congress, the president and the congress must confer, agree to and sign a budget at least 30 days prior to the beginning of each fiscal year.
  3. Failure of a President to meet the responsibilities described above on a timely basis constitutes voluntary resignation from the office of the presidency.
  4. Failure of the Congress to meet its responsibilities described above on a timely basis constitutes ninety day notice of resignation from office by all members of the congress. Each state will elect new members of congress within 60 days to take office 30 days later.
  5. A balanced budget must include all projected expenses plus any unplanned deficit from the prior year and retirement of at least one percent of existing national debt.  It must also include projection of sufficient tax revenue to fund the budget.
  6. An unbalanced budget with expenses exceeding revenue is permissible during a  time of war or other national emergency declared by the congress and approved by the President.  An unbalanced budget requires approval by sixty percent of the members of each house of congress.
  7. Trust Fund programs operated by the Federal Government which have their own dedicated revenue streams may accumulate surpluses and loan them to the Federal Budget at the discretion of the Congress and the President.  Timely repayment of such debt is the highest priority claim on federal revenue.  (Social Security is the main program of this kind.)

The specific language and content of constitutional amendments requires extreme care and scrutiny.  I’ve only tried to describe principles for an amendment, not the exacting language that would be needed.

My prediction is that it will be difficult to get legislators from either political party to consider an amendment because few, if any, are willing to make the decisions required to balance budgets. Facing a deficit, legislators from both parties are generally more willing to raise the debt ceiling than to raise taxes or cut spending.

After all the partisan shouting is done, the necessary compromises usually involve increasing our debt.  The burden is borne by voters and taxpayers.  With this amendment, if officeholders fail, they lose their jobs to someone who is willing to actually do the work.  Holding new elections to replace a failing legislature is not a radical idea. Numerous parliamentary democracies do exactly that.

This column lays out an ambitious vision for solving an urgent national problem.  It’s a good first step toward more effective government because it will also force more responsible decisions on all other federal priorities.

Is it unrealistic to think that our congress, president and voters would actually do this?  Maybe…  But if congress is unable to balance a budget, how can they expect to find success on other contentious questions like immigration, health care, war and civil rights that sit atop their agenda?

If we can’t make such decisions, our future as a viable nation is in doubt.  Let’s get started.

All Posts, Constitution, guns, health, lgbtq, north carolina, poverty, public education, taxes, war

What to do on the morning after?

3 Comments

The day after the election will be the first day of the rest of our lives. What should we expect of our elected officials? Will we help or undermine each other and elected leaders?  If individuals, families and communities listen to each other’s ideas and agree on how to move forward together, we can invigorate the idea of “commonwealth”, a society that is organized to benefit all.  Everybody wins.  If, on the other hand, winners kick losers while they’re down in order to maintain dominance and if losers do all they can to stop winners from implementing their ideas then the republic will decline.  Everybody loses.

It’s happened in great societies throughout history and it’s especially clear in the Bible’s Old Testament. When those in power dominate and abuse the powerless, everybody loses and the society fails.  When the principle of commonwealth guides decisions, the society blossoms.

Poverty, income inequality and homelessness are at crisis levels in many places.  Rural America has depended on agriculture and manufacturing to provide family incomes and property tax revenue for local governments.  Both of those economic sectors now produce more goods with fewer people than ever before.  At the same time that rural employment opportunities paying middle class wages have become scarce, the tax revenues of rural communities have stagnated.  Budgets for public education, safety, and human services are under severe stress at a time when they are critical to redevelopment of communities.  The plight of rural America has much in common with high poverty neighborhoods of urban America.  Low incomes and insufficient resources have similar effects in both places.

Will legislatures reconsider how public services are funded and which tax revenues are available at local, state and federal levels?  Will high poverty areas have funding for education, high-speed internet, water, sewer, quality of life, health and other priorities at a level that is proportionate to wealthy areas?  If not, will their future be inter-generational poverty and emigration of successful residents to more desirable areas?  Will legislators work at solving the underlying problems or will they pit urban vs rural and white vs black vs Hispanic for partisan gain?

What about the sanctity of human life?  Will we expect our congress, legislatures and executives to behave as if “all lives matter”?  Does someone who wants a gun have the right to own an assault rifle designed for mass killing?  Does a woman have the right to remove a fetus from her body?  In which decisions should government have a role?

Conflicts between personal and constitutional values will not be fully resolved but can we make progress for the common good?   Could we agree to reduce the demand for abortion by providing free birth control, better access to pre-natal care, simple and inexpensive adoption procedures, and by solving our income inequality problems?   Will we expect legislators to find ways to preserve gun ownership for self-defense and recreation while getting weapons designed for mass killing out of circulation and screening gun purchasers to rule out suspected terrorists and known criminals?  Or will we reward leaders for continuing to insult each other?

The Republican controlled Senate has refused to consider President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court.  They hope to win the Presidential election and get a conservative-leaning nominee. Senators Richard Burr and Ted Cruz have made the radical statement that if Hillary Clinton is elected, they will refuse to confirm nominees and let the court shrink.  That abrogation of a senator’s constitutional responsibility would invite similar behavior from Democrats toward a Republican president. Will we insist that senators fulfill their constitutional duties?

Differences of race, wealth, religion and philosophy divide us on a long list of issues: immigration, transpacific partnership, climate change, war, taxes, LBGTQ rights, health care, and more.

We’re not all going to miraculously agree after the election. Continued success for our republic will require two things of us.  First, we must look honestly at facts.  Second, we must engage each other in ongoing conversation (listening more than arguing) about the principle of commonwealth – making decisions and laws that create opportunity and peace for all of us.

Our legislators are capable of that, but they will do it only if they know that we voters expect it, demand it, and that we’re doing it ourselves.

We can start on November 9.

All Posts, budget, economy, health, justice, lgbtq, medicaid, north carolina, taxes

We can do well while doing good

The ongoing debate about the economic impact of HB2, North Carolina’s “bathroom law” seems both sad and laughable because its effect is so small when compared to another foolish decision made by the state’s Republican legislature. The economic and human damage done by the decision to reject expansion of the Medicaid program is greater by far.

Republican friends, before you disagree, do your homework and discover the facts for yourselves. Bring truth to the debate and then see how your legislature’s decisions look under that bright light. Before considering human impact, let’s examine some raw financial facts.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute have collaborated on research to understand the economic impact on states that rejected Medicaid Expansion. They found that health care funding in North Carolina would be increased by $41 billion in the decade from 2017-2026 if the state accepts Medicaid expansion. That would require $4.9 billion of state funding and would bring $36.1 billion in federal funding. Do the math. $36.1 minus $4.9 equals $31.2 in net gain. Another way to look at it, suppose someone offered you $36.10 in exchange for $4.90. Would you accept it? That is one billionth of the deal that Republicans rejected.  The legislature knew this information when it rejected the Medicaid expansion.

Some will argue that our state budget is too large and we shouldn’t increase it further by expanding Medicaid. That is a reasonable concern, so let’s look at Medicaid expansion in the context of other government spending.

Most federal highway grants require a 20 percent state match. State funding of $4.9 billion would produce a federal highway match of $19.6 billion. That is $16.5 billion less than we would get if we spent the money on Medicaid expansion. Therefore, if one accepts purely financial justification for not expanding Medicaid, the state would be better off by $16.5 billion to reject the highway match and use the money to fund Medicaid.

In addition to providing health care to uninsured North Carolinians, the Medicaid expansion would create thousands of new jobs in health care to replace those lost in other industries.

The argument that “we can’t afford it” doesn’t hold water when made by legislators who spend money on items that yield a far smaller return on investment. It’s a matter of priorities, and this legislature obviously sees other spending as more important than keeping poor people alive and creating jobs.

What about the human effect of the decision? The Medicaid expansion was designed to provide coverage for the working poor, many of whom have jobs (sometimes more than one job) but who are paid so little that they can’t afford insurance even with the help of the Affordable Care Act.  Whatever became of that right wing mantra “take a bath and get a job”? As cynical as it sounds, the Medicaid expansion is designed to support exactly that behavior. It provides health care for people at the bottom of the economic ladder so that they can stay healthy enough to work and support themselves.

Instead of supporting a program that fits with their own traditional philosophies, Republicans rejected the expansion. That leaves us with a law that requires hospitals participating in Medicare and doctors with privileges to practice there to provide emergency and obstetrical care without regard to a patient’s ability or willingness to pay. The cost of that is invisibly built into the prices paid by everyone else. As a result, North Carolinians will pay for surgery to add a few months of life for an emergency patient diagnosed with advanced colon cancer. But we won’t expand Medicaid to pay for the colonoscopy that could have prevented the cancer from forming in the first place. The result of Republican policy is higher cost and a dead patient.

Yes, HB2 is a foolish law that should be repealed. Yes, the cancellation of concerts and sports events has an economic impact on hotels, restaurants and tourism. Yes, the law unfairly discriminates against a largely defenseless class of citizens. Yes, it should be repealed. But so far no one has died as a result of HB2 and the economic impact is microscopic compared to the rejection of Medicaid expansion.

It’s a fabulous opportunity when the right thing to do is also the profitable thing to do.  We have two such opportunities at the moment.  Accept the Medicaid expansion.  Repeal HB2.  Everybody will win.

Republican friends, the facts don’t support your policies.  It’s time to change your minds.

All Posts, campaign finance, poverty, taxes

Radically Practical Ideas for 2016

5 Comments

As I listen to friends of varied political persuasions, it seems that we all want 2016 to be a better year than the one we just completed; but many of us are predicting a miserable future.   Being dissatisfied and angry won’t fix problems.  Neither will arguing about who to blame.  Instead, it is time to stop “predicting” the future and begin “creating” the one that we want.  We can do that by shifting our attention from all that is wrong to improving our nation with practical ideas that a majority of us can agree on.  Here are a few possibilities.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM:  We need to reduce the influence of big money without limiting free speech.  One solution is to create a national or state election website with a page for every elected office.  Only registered candidates for office would be allowed to post on the website.   Anything they post would remain until after the election, so any changes of position would be apparent.   Voters could see and judge whatever the candidates themselves say about issues and about each other.  Candidates could post written messages, photos, audio or video clips.  Their words would be unfiltered by Super-PACS, advertising or news media.  This is an inexpensive and easy way for candidates to campaign.  It would reduce the need for big advertising budgets.  And since everyone who is interested would have instant access to the candidates’ messages, there might even be fewer robo-calls.

INCOME DISPARITIES AND LACK OF OPPORTUNITY:  An economic map of America will show that extreme poverty persists across multiple generations within well defined geographic areas – some of them urban and others rural.  One solution is to make whatever government funded financial assistance we provide for housing portable so that people can use it anywhere.  Rather than building public housing, we could let those receiving assistance use housing subsidies to choose whatever private sector housing best meets their needs.  This change will allow them to migrate to places with jobs, grocery stores, good schools, public transportation and good public safety.  Families are much more likely to break out of the generational cycle of poverty if they are not  confined to communities devoid of opportunity and surrounded by underemployment, crime and other social ills.  This idea could be tested by gradual implementation to assure that it works as intended.  If it does, then we could expand it and eventually sell existing public housing for private use or re-development.

TAX REFORM:  Corporations are, at best, tax collectors, not tax payers.  All of the taxes that they pay are passed on to customers.  We might be better off treating their profits and losses as a per share pass-through of ordinary income to shareholders whether the actual cash is distributed or not.  This will have the effect of reducing the cost of American-made products and services in international markets, increasing exports and creating jobs.  By taxing corporate profits as income to the owners of the corporation,  we could maintain or increase the tax revenue that the government receives from corporate taxes.  Since our income tax is already graduated, the revised tax burden will be greater for the wealthy than for middle and low income families.  The only part of this idea that might become complicated is creating a mechanism to document profits to Americans from foreign corporations.

We could also create a small national sales tax (one half of one percent or less) on all financial instruments including stocks, bonds ETFs, credit default swaps, etc.  This tax would be only a modest burden to long term investors, including those saving for retirement but it would deter the high-frequency trading that creates wild swings in the value of our investments.  It would also bring in revenue to help us toward a balanced budget.

There is good news about America that we too easily forget:  We don’t have to agree on everything in order to improve.  We only have to begin seeing our problems as opportunities for improvement.  If we will do that, we will find radically practical ideas – if not mine then perhaps yours or someone else’s – to improve our lives.  In 2016 let’s resolve to build on our areas of agreement while we continue to debate our differences.

 

 

All Posts, budget, Congress, deficit, taxes

NEW IDEAS FOR A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

3 Comments

Our elected officials in Washington congratulate themselves for avoiding a government shutdown and argue about which non-budgetary legislation to tack onto “must-pass” short term spending bills while we limp from month to month with no long range financial plan .  This column is my attempt to persuade readers of all political stripes that we should pass a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget – not because I like the idea but because nothing else seems to work.

First, a dose of reality – Social Security is not the problem.  In 66 of its 77 years Social Security has brought in more money than it spent. That includes the most recent 34 consecutive years.  Because we are living longer and have the large baby-boom generation retiring, Social Security will need some combination of delayed retirement, increased taxes, and reduced benefits; but if congress will act soon, the changes will not be massive.

The real problems are in other areas of the budget.  Our deficit for 2015 was $439 billion despite a $19 billion surplus by Social Security.  Historical data from the US Office of Management and Budget show only two recent balanced budgets: 1999 and 2000 (President Bill Clinton’s last two years).  Prior to that it was 1960, the last year of President Eisenhower’s term.  We have had budget deficits for 53 of the last 55 years and our Congress seems more interested in cutting taxes and increasing spending than in balancing budgets.

Federal spending prior to WWII was typically 10% or less of the value of all the goods and services produced in the nation (GDP).  Since then the US has emerged as a world military power and has developed our social safety net.  As a result, Federal spending has been about 17-20% of GDP since 1975.    Data from the Federal Reserve Bank demonstrate that our serious debt problems emerged in the early 1980s when the Reagan Administration began cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy without cutting spending.  Historical data from the Office of Management and Budget show that deficits became consistently large around the same time.  Total tax collections have actually remained fairly stable at 17-19% of GDP but the corporate share has been cut in half and capital gains taxes have been reduced while payroll taxes increased.

That is the background information.  Here are some ideas for a constitutional amendment:

  1. Congress is required to pass a budget and establish taxes to fund the budget for periods of time that are not less than one year.  The budget and taxes must be passed and sent to the President at least three months prior to the effective date.
  2. If the congress fails to pass a budget on time there will be a new election 90 days later to replace the entire congress.  The prior year’s budget and taxes will be automatically extended for one year or until they are changed by the new congress.
  3. The debt of the nation is limited to the sum of values of trust funds established by the congress (Social Security for example).
  4. The requirement to balance each budget may be waived during a state of emergency declared by a 60 percent majority of both houses of Congress.  The declaration is valid for not more than one year but can be renewed as many times as the Congress thinks necessary.
  5. At any time when there is no declared state of emergency, 2% of non-trust fund tax revenues will be set aside for reduction of excess debt.

The amendment will:

  1. Force the Congress to do its job.
  2. Protect Social Security and other trust funds that provide pre-paid benefits.
  3. Allow enough flexibility to deal with genuine emergencies and wars.
  4. Gradually pay down existing debt.

The amendment would force serious debate about priorities.  We will be less likely to go to war if we have to raise taxes for it.  There will be more pressure to eliminate wasteful spending and tax loopholes.  There will be pressure to raise taxes for infrastructure, research, and human services.

I was taught in high school that “Economics is the science of meeting unlimited human wants with the limited resources available.”  A balanced budget amendment will require our government to help us do exactly that.

 

All Posts, health, medicaid, taxes

DOING THAT COULD MAKE YOU BLIND

A South Carolina man is learning that there are some things that feel good at the time but, yes, they can make you go blind.  Here’s a recap of his story, much of it from the Charlotte Observer.  Luis Lang was self-employed with a good income and a 3300 square foot house worth more than $300,000.  He knew that the law (Obama Care) required him to buy health insurance, but it felt good to spend the money  on other things. Continue reading DOING THAT COULD MAKE YOU BLIND →

All Posts, budget, deficit, economy, taxes

Your Christmas Gift From Wall Street

Congress and taxpayers bailed out too-big-to-fail financial firms that now seem interested only in profits; not in repairing damage that they did. This column demonstrates how Wall Street firms and Congress subsidize each other at the expense of the middle class. Continue reading Your Christmas Gift From Wall Street →

All Posts, economy, justice, poverty, race, taxes

An Economy Divided Against Itself

1 Comment

On June 16, 1858 a  little-known candidate for the Illinois Senate spoke these words, “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.”  Abraham Lincoln was defeated in that election.

Twenty-first Century America is a house divided.  Like Lincoln, we should expect that our nation will cease to be divided, not that it will fall.  Like the America of 1858, we must choose our destiny.  We may become a commonwealth where everyone has opportunity to develop her or his full potential; benefitting financially and socially from personal efforts. Or we may become a winner-take-all nation where the wealthy grant only subsistence to those who labor. Continue reading An Economy Divided Against Itself →