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.