Tariffs Are an Indirect Tax on Consumers, Not China

Tariffs are an indirect tax on consumers, despite what Trump and the GOP tell you.

When there are tariffs in place, consumer goods coming into the United States are charged a tariff. 

The tax received from the tariff goes to the United States treasury.

The retailer who purchases the consumer goods pays the additional cost that the tariff caused.

The retailer then will raise the price of the product to cover the cost of the tariff.

When the consumer purchases the product, the price includes the cost of the tariff. 

Therefore, as simple as this is, the consumer is paying for the tariff tax. 

There should be no increase in taxes, direct or indirect, without specific approval of the voters.

Since the Constitution specifies that all revenue bills are to be introduced in the House of Representatives, it is the House and only the House that should be able to raise revenues.

The Right to Know

The Right to Know

• It is vitally important to a democracy to enable all people to research the issues and receive opinions from a wide variety of sources as well as their elected officials.
• Only by knowing the details of our elected official’s position on the issues can citizens of a democracy make the very best decisions in the voting booth.
• When elected officials state their positions on the issues, everyone should be able to read, view and listen to them.
• When this position is published by a media outlet that is a paid subscription only it limits the amount of citizens that are able to be aware of the position.     
• It is my position that all publications, announcements and other statements on any issues be fully available to all citizens.

Socialism is Not a Failed Economic Policy

One of the big myths in politics today supported by the right is that socialism is a failure and that it has failed in every country that embraced it.  They give many examples of countries that a have failed in a big way.

What the right doesn’t talk about are those countries were socialism has been successful.  Take for example just a few, The Netherlands, Ireland, England, Sweden and Norway.  In any list of successful socialist countries, you must also include Israel, even if the right says it is not a socialist country.

They make sure their supporters focus on Venezuela, Cuba and a host of other failed countries. Those countries didn’t fail because their economies were based on socialism but because of the politicians and despots that managed those countries. 

The managers of those failed socialist countries were despots that were looking to increase their own wealth and the wealth of their supporters.  They were also just giving the citizens anything they wanted to win their support as opposed what is needed, that which the country was able to provide and they failed to manage their systems in an honest and practical manner. 

Another reason for their failure was the United States’ policies toward socialist countries in general and some specifically.  We cut off not only aide but also trade and business relationships. 

Cuba is a great example of the United States policies that forced the countries to fail.  Not only did we stop trade with them by preventing American citizens and businesses doing business with them, we also worked with small countries in the hemisphere that depended on the United States for a large share of their economies from doing business with Cuba.

In the end, there are successful socialist countries.  They are countries that don’t feel the wrath of the United States policy toward them and that have managed their economies in a responsible manner.

Don’t forget that when you hear the right talking about how socialist countries fail, because they don’t fail.

Note:  It should be stated here that I didn’t provide a definition for socialism.  The point of the blog post was not to provide the clearest and most precise definition of the economic theory but provide an example of the deceit of the right when it comes to socialism.

Unfriending Friends Because of Racism

There is a dear friend of mine that lives in Independence, Missouri, that I had to take break from on facebook and cut other contact with for at least 30 days.

While long distance relationships are hard to keep if you are in love with someone, friends can be even harder.  They can change without in warning because you don’t have day to day contact with them to witness what is going on.

What seemed like overnight, this friend began posting extreme right comments and even reposting white nationalist ideas.

When I responded, the comments from him became more and more strident.

Conversations like this between friends who were politically different, use do to be more, well, friendly. 

Now they have become insulting, racists and, to steal a phrase from facebook, unfriend(ly).

Children in Concentration Camps

As a rationalization of taking children away from parents at the border, Trump and his henchmen and women have stated that if I was convicted of a crime, my child would be taken away from me. Therefore, it is no different when the children of people at the border are taken away. 

I strongly disagree.

First, at the border, the people that arrive there have not been convicted of any crime.  Without a conviction in a court of law, the people at the border are not criminals.  So, the children should not be taken away from their parents. 

Furthermore, under United States’ and International Law, asylum seekers are not criminals.  They are people seeking an escape from a dangerous situation in their home country.  Their status must be reviewed by a court that is fair and impartial.

Even if I was convicted of a crime, my child would not be taken away from me.  They would still be my children and they could come and see me at anytime while I am in prison.

My children would be with family members, guardians or others that would be responsible for their care and treatment.  They would not be placed in concentration camps.

This is inhumane treatment of children and their parents.

This must stop.

An email from Senator Debbie Stabenow on her support of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Dear Morris,


Thank you for contacting me about your support for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I share your views.

The CFPB was created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act to give consumers the information they need when making financial decisions and to promote fairness and transparency for mortgages, credit cards, and other consumer financial products and services. Our shared desire to protect working families is why I strongly supported and am involved with the implementation of Wall Street Reform.

A number of bills have been introduced to weaken or eliminate the CFPB’s ability to regulate consumer financial products and services. While it is important that Congress exercises appropriate oversight over the CFPB, I will continue to ensure that the agency can accomplish its mission of representing the needs of consumers, families, and small businesses.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please continue to keep me informed about issues of concern to you and your family.

Sincerely,

 

Debbie Stabenow
United States Senator

Thank you, Senator Stabenow.

Department of Commerce v. New York (18-966) SCOTUS Citizenship question on the Census

Here is a line from the SCOTUS decision on the citizenship question on the Census (Department of Commerce v. New York (18-966)):

"The Secretary did not violate the Enumeration Clause or the Census Act in deciding to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire,...

but the District Court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the evidence tells a story that does not match the Secretary’s explanation for his decision."

In the first part of the statement, the court states that the Department of Commerce did not violate the Enumeration Clause by placing in the census a question about the applicant's citizenship.

But, second part of the statement states that sense the Department of Commerce lied during their defense of their actions, the case was sent back.

In other words, the agency outright lied.

The funny thing about this is that the statement from the court says that if the Department of Commerce had not lied, the Department of Commerce and President Trump would have won.

Just tell the truth.