PoliticalPoints: Politics quick, fast & in a hurry.

Between listening to presidential debates and political TV pundits, you’ve probably heard a lot of discussion about “taxes for the rich.” Are the wealthy really at a tax advantage over the poor? How can you tell when a specific tax break favors those with abundant income? How is the government involved? As it turns out, wealth does indeed give a person a “leg-up” when it comes to taxes. There are several asset-based tax credits and breaks; most middle or low-income families have few or no assets and therefore don’t apply for the benefits. Capital gains tax, for instance, is a tax attached to stocks, bonds and investments at a low rate of 15%, which allows individuals to keep most of their investment income and contribute a small portion back into the economy. The tax rate on an average citizen’s wages is 35%. The government creates tax laws and codes, so politicians are often accused of adding more cuts and passing legislation that is partial and more beneficial to the wealthy. The fact that most government officials are affluent and could possibly be influenced by equally affluent lobbyists, fuels speculation of bias. To see a list of 5 main tax breaks that help the rich stay rolling in the dough, click here.

In this day, some assume that social issues like racial and gender discrimination are a thing of the past, but that’s far from true. It may not exist as often in explicit forms, but it’s still here living and breathing. As a matter of fact, the insidious, underlying, institutional discrimination is sometimes a worse evil. Among the bevy of topics hitting the election horizon are women’s rights, especially in regards to medical care. Abortion legalization is usually at the center of this discussion, but women right’s infringement goes far beyond that and I'll come back to it later.

Equal Work Pay
I think many will be surprised to learn that in 2012, women still do not receive identical employment wages as men for the same position. Research shows that in many cases, women receive $0.77 for every $1.00 men earn. $0.23 may not seem like a huge difference, but it definitely adds up. For instance, if a female is employee is earning $11.55 hourly to a male employee’s $15.00 for 8 hours of work, there’s going to be $27.60 difference in wages by the end of the day- and that’s before taxes are withheld. Single-income houses supported by women and single mothers are hurt most by this divergence. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was signed into law in 2009 by President Obama, removing statutes of limitations to file an equal pay lawsuit. Earlier proposed versions of the bill did not readily get support from Republican officials and candidate Mitt Romney remained elusive on his views on the act until April 2012 when he confirmed he would not repeal the legislation if elected.

Healthcare Cost/Coverage Discrimination
Results from a study conducted by the National Women’s Law Center revealed that many insurance companies charge higher premiums to women and often exclude coverage of services that only women need, like maternity care. The report also explained how the Affordable Healthcare Act (A.K.A “ObamaCare”) would help eliminate discriminatory practices and expand coverage. As far as I know, Romney’s campaign has not addressed premium gender-bias specifically. There has been much debate about the federal funding of Planned Parenthood, a reproductive health and sexual education organization and chief provider of low-cost women’s health services (ex. cancer screenings and birth control). Some politicians want to cut funding to the organization to reduce government spending or because they feel uncomfortable with Parenthood’s offering of abortion education and procedures (Planned Parenthood maintains that government funds are not used provide abortions). Considering what the group affords women, this stance is sometimes viewed as insensitive to the demographic.

Birth Control/ Abortion
The inclusion of birth control in insurance packages has been as hot of a topic as abortion lately. Some feel that birth control is a voluntary, discretionary medicine that will increase insurance prices if included. The reality is that birth control is often prescribed to help with an array of illnesses influenced by hormonal changes and the reproduction system, such as ovarian cysts. Birth control does indeed have a medicinal purpose other than preventing pregnancy.

On the subject of abortion legalization, it’s often deemed a gender issue because pregnancy and abortion primarily affect women and is decided by a male-dominated U.S. government. Roe V. Wade was the landmark court decision that lead to the legalization of abortion across the nation. Mitt Romney describes himself as “pro-life” and seeks to have the decision overturned, leaving the choice of legalization to individual state government. President Obama wants to uphold Roe V. Wade. “Pro-life” means that one believes each child conceived should live. Those that are “pro-choice” believe that the mother should have the freedom to decide whether or not to carry her child to term. There are many inaccurate stigmas about both. Pro-lifers are often stereotyped as sexist, intense, judgmental individuals who try to traumatize people into disagreeing with abortion by flashing pictures of aborted fetuses. Pro-choicers are sometimes labeled as “baby-killing” murderers who endorse promiscuity and nonchalantly consider abortion as a form of birth control. Neither stereotype is true. There are some fiery pro-life groups and “sexual freedom” pro-choicers, but that isn’t everyone. At the heart of pro-life concern is the loss of a potential life, while freedom and option is the concern of pro-choice.

I am pro-choice and believe that overturning Roe V. Wade would be an injustice towards women; let me tell you why. If abortion is illegal, women WILL back-door the procedure and seek the help of those who are ill-quipped to perform it, opening themselves to infection, illness or death. We don’t want that. 2nd, I believe we have to watch what we allow government to control. The government should not force any woman to carry (or abort, like in China with the one-child policy) a child to term, especially if doing so will threaten the mother’s life or she is a victim of rape or incest. Forcing a woman to carry or abort is violation of personal choice. No, I do not approve of promiscuity or using abortion casually, but that’s just it- it’s never casual. For pregnant women in crisis, deciding to keep, abort or place their child to be adopted is NEVER a causal or easy choice and there are social and personal ramifications with every option. I know this first-hand as I completed an internship at a post-abortion counseling center and met women who all handled their crisis pregnancy differently. I wanted to try diffuse the idea and typecast that abortion is a game for those who seek to receive one.

These are all major issues that profoundly impact the lives, health and freedoms of women and it’s important for the sake of gender equality, we analyze them and question our presidential candidates on how they plan to approach them.

By C. Dyer, contributing writer

After watching the presidential debate the other night, I decided to browse a few of NBC's videos. One I came across was about campaign paraphernalia. Among flag-colored cocktails and "VOTE" slippers were baby-onesies expressing support for each political party. I'm not sure how anyone else seeing them reacted, but I grew rather concerned. 

Why would parents need or want to make a political statement with their child's clothing? It’s cute to parents or family, but consider the mindset behind it. Dressing a small child in political or religious [based] clothing reflects the desire of the parent for the child to be just like them. The job of parents is not to raise carbon copies, but to teach their children to think critically and form opinions for themselves. It's partly because of this "my way or the highway" attitude that many children grow up to be followers. Many superficially believe what their parents or friends believe without ever giving it real thought. 

Parents should keep in mind who their children may grow up to be. If we don't make thoughtful choices, our children may grow to resent us later on. The child with the political t-shirt may grow up to be decidedly anti-part. The boy with the "God Hates Gays" sign may be an atheist. The girl sporting Wicca emblems may be a future Catholic. Regardless of personal beliefs, children direct their own futures. It's not up to us to decide.

Deciding who to select for U.S. president may be an easy choice for some; plenty of people vote principally on political party affiliation or who has similar personal interests, but that’s not how I roll and voting has never been a simple task for me. In my opinion, there’s much to evaluate each election season. If you believe in being “bi-partisan,” or assessing a candidate based on their individual plans versus party association, you have to thoroughly review their ideas and look into their background to possibly get some perspective on their consistency. If there’s an incumbent president running, you have to recall and analyze the last 4 years and try to predict what the next 4 will be like if they’re re-elected. This isn’t quick and painless homework for anyone, especially if you’re not politically savvy already.

Trying to increase political knowledge is a little daunting; most television programs, magazines, blogs and websites are biased or lean more towards one candidate than another. I find this particularly frustrating because I never know if I’m getting unfiltered truth. News programs are supposed to be about informing; not “spinning” or influencing. It would be nice if there wasn’t an attempt to manipulate my mind and I could make a decision based on pure facts. With summarized or generalized information, visiting a nominee’s official website sometimes doesn’t tell you much either. For example, while looking over President Obama’s site, there was a point about gender discrimination in healthcare that read: “President Obama is putting an end to the health insurance company practice of charging women more than men for the same coverage… Mitt Romney would let employers, insurance companies, and politicians limit women’s health choices.” The statement doesn’t entail the specific actions Pres. Obama is taking to put “an end” to charge differences, nor does it explain how Mitt Romney’s plan “limits women’s health choices” or allows for the continuation of discrimination. If one was completely ignorant to the issue of women’s rights and healthcare, it would be hard to fill in the blanks with that statement.

President picking can also be hard if you agree AND disagree with a candidate on various key issues. I agree with President Obama’s stance on abortion legalization, but I’m not completely sold on his economics. One might feel that the economy is much more important than the status of abortion legalization, but the reality is that ALL issues are important because they can and will affect someone. We shouldn’t only be concerned with what affects us directly. We purport that our politicians must always consider the collective, yet we often don’t ourselves-but that’s another subject. Some will read this article and assume that I am indecisive, but voting for lawmakers who affect the lives of my fellow citizens is not something I take lightly.

PoliticalPoints: Politics quick, fast & in a hurry.

I was having dinner with a man who worked for a government official and his comments on presidential elections and voters were very revealing. He gave me permission to post his thoughts here on the site, but only anonymously. He said the following:

“Perception is everything, that’s why media is so powerful. If voters hear it enough via media that you believe or have done a particular thing, they will buy it without researching the accuracy of the statement or report. The average voter does not understand politics and every politician knows and takes advantage of that. They often systematically target demographics they know have limited political understanding.”

I was searching my junk email last week for an important message that may have been filtered, when I saw an email from “Beyonce` Knowles.” I thought this was strange, considering promotional messages from the pop-singer’s website usually safely makes it to my inbox. I opened it up and realized immediately why it filtered. The email didn’t come from Bey’s website; it was from "[email protected]." It was a rather interestingly worded advertisement for a donation contest:

“ I have an amazing invitation I have to share. Jay [husband, rapper Jay-z] and I [Beyonce`] will be meeting up with President Obama for an evening in NYC sometime soon. And we want you to be there! Until midnight tonight, if you pitch in $25 or whatever you can, you'll be automatically entered to be flown out to join us. I've had the honor of meeting President Obama and the First Lady a few times -- and believe me -- it's an opportunity you don't want to miss…. https://donate.barackobama.com/Meet-Me-in-New-York. Can't wait to meet you! Love, Beyoncé”

I checked Barack Obama’s website and the offer was legit. I’m sure thousands of Beyonce` fans and Obama supporters jumped at the chance and donated, but I found the whole email and offer unsettling. First, I think it’s a problem that the email doesn’t clearly state what entity you’re donating to or why. It kind of appears sneaky and secretive; the financial backing of a government official is covert. Second, Beyonce`, in this case, is selling her and Obama’s presence for money. It’s kind of like political prostitution. Support the politician I’m likely voting for and I’ll have dinner with you? This is very different from a product endorsement or being a spokesperson for a cause. I don’t get to share a meal with Beyonce` if I purchase a box of L’Oreal hair color. My hair will just be a different hue. As a spokesperson for a cause, I get to hear from Beyonce` why she thinks the cause is important and why I should contribute; I still don’t get to have tacos with her. Had I received an email declaring her endorsement for Barack Obama, why she backs him and why I should give him money, I wouldn’t have raised my eyebrows. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with celebrities supporting politicians, but it matters how you do it. Don’t pimp yourself out. If you’re going to use your name and voice, let’s hear your name and voice.

As some of you may or may not know, a video of presidential candidate Mitt Romney leaked earlier this week in which he said the following about some American voters:

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president [Obama] no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. My job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

Romney was reportedly speaking at a private fundraiser and was unaware of the fact that he was being videotaped (you can view the footage here). If you don’t already see how Romney’s statement is quite misguided, let me attempt to explain how. Romney mentions how this voting cluster doesn’t pay income taxes. If your personal income is extremely low (i.e. the working poor) or non-existent, you may qualify for a tax credit (ex. child tax or earned income credit). According to the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), 60% of non-taxpayers were low-income workers, 22% were elderly individuals on Social Security and 17% were students, unemployed or disabled. These telling figures aside, Romney’s comments are reflective of the negative, stigma-based attitudes about the poor and those on government benefit programs. His statement implied that those who use government benefits are lazy, spoiled and comfortable in the state they’re in. This is a STEREOTYPE. Living below the poverty level is FAR from a comfortable lifestyle. As mentioned before, there are thousands of Americans who work hard and daily for very small wages. Minimum wage in most states is not a livable income, especially if one has children or is taking care of an elder parent. Lots of others have trouble gaining and retaining employment-particularly in this economy-for various reasons, including limited resources (ex. transportation), lack of education and prejudice. When I was working at a fast-food restaurant as a teen, a 50-something year old woman with hardly any teeth turned in an application. The manager told an associate to throw it away and said “She doesn’t have any teeth.” It never ran across his mind that perhaps she couldn’t afford dental care and if he gave her a job maybe she could. Imagine if every potential employer was that prejudiced. She would never find work.

When those in poverty speak of the obstacles that exacerbate their situation, they’re often told that they are complaining, making excuses or think that “they are victims.” This attitude is part of the reason certain things do not improve; few are willing to listen, accept and act when the impoverished or downtrodden speak. They’re called liars and met with judgment and heartlessness. Many have held Romney’s personal financial wealth against him, proposing that he’s “out of touch” and cannot relate to majority of voters. I don’t think it’s fair to assume that he cannot efficiently lead the country or help others simply because he is wealthy (let’s face it, most politicians are well-off and don’t match the demographics of most citizens), but when he makes comments like this, it gives evidence to the argument. Gail Gitcho, a Romney campaign spokeswoman, stated “Mitt Romney wants to help all Americans struggling in the Obama economy…the growing number of people who are dependent on the federal government…struggling to find work. Mitt Romney's plan…grows the economy and moves Americans off of government dependency and into jobs." It’s hard to believe that someone is concerned about you when they imply you’re lazy and playing the victim. What’s really confusing is that Romney acknowledges the economic downturn is part of the reason for “government dependency” and unemployment in one breath, but suggests complacency and idleness is the reason in another. Which one is it? As columnist Melissa Harris-Perry wrote: “There is some messy logic involved with insisting people get a job & while campaigning on platform that there are not enough jobs.”

Also on the tape are Romney’s opinions on ABC’s “The View,” saying that appearing on the program would be “high-risk, because, of the 5 women on it, only 1 is conservative and 4 are sharp-tongued and not conservative.” Is it high-risk because the “sharp-tongued” women will challenge his views and he might feel backed into a corner? His views are supposed to be challenged, whether he’s with fellow republicans or not. I would like to think that any citizen or journalist, regardless of political affiliation, would ask the important questions. What are your thoughts on Mitt Romney’s statements?