Published – Idaho State Journal, 08/26/12

The mainstream media and liberals would have us believe that conservatives, and Republicans in particular, are heartless, uncaring, and parsimonious. Yet new IRS data, as reported this past week in a major study, clearly provides empirical data to the contrary.

States with the least religious residents are the stingiest when it comes to charitable contributions; red states give more than blue states, and middle income households give more as a percentage of their disposable income than the wealthy do. Such were the results of a study released this week by the Chronicle of Philanthropy.

Based on data gathered from Internal Revenue Service records, many stereotypical assumptions were validated by the study. Drawing from 2008 tax return information, the most recent year such statistical data are available, the Chronicle broke down charitable contributions as a percentage of discretionary income, and by zip code. Researchers adjusted for variables including cost of living differences from region to region, according to Peter Panepento, the Chronicle’s assistant managing editor.

The research clearly shows that people living in states where religious participation is higher are more magnanimous with a larger percentage of their disposable income going to charitable organizations, including churches. In general geographic terms, those in the south, and some western states, give much more than those who live in the northeast.

The top states for magnanimity are: 1. Utah at 10.6% of discretionary spending donated to charity; 2. Mississippi at 7.2%; 3. Alabama at 7.1%; 4. Tennessee at 6.6%; 5. South Carolina at 6.4%; and 6. Idaho, at 6.4%. Not surprising as well is that those states comprised mostly of conservative Christians led the nation in volunteering time as well. Over 45% of Utah residents volunteer time to non-profit, charitable organizations, and 32% of Idahoans likewise volunteer their time in service.

The most stingy states were: Connecticut, 3.3%; Rhode Island, 3.1%; Massachusetts, 2.8%; Vermont 2.8%; Maine, 2.8%, and New Hampshire, 2.5%.

The political aspect of this analysis is compelling. Of the 10 least generous states, according to the study, nine voted for Barack Obama in the last presidential election, while eight of the ten most generous states voted for John McCain. Panepento indicated that is more a statement of the religiosity of the state, which colors political orientation than anything else. "I don't know if I could go out and say it's a complete Republican-Democrat difference as much as it is different religious attitudes and culture in these states," he said.

The study indicated that when religious giving is excluded, those blue states that were most penurious actually fared much better. The top charities in those states appear to be environment oriented.

Understandably, there are some who are critical of the research. Alan Wolfe, a political science professor at Boston College, said, “It's wrong to link a state's religious makeup with its generosity. People in less religious states are giving in a different way by being more willing to pay higher taxes so the government can equitably distribute superior benefits… I think people here believe that when they pay their taxes, they're being altruistic."

It’s obvious that Dr. Wolfe, as well as some of our fellow citizens, subscribe to the Ebenezer Scrooge notion of charity. When asked for a donation at Christmastime to help the poor and destitute, Scrooge responded, “Are there no prisons? And the union workhouses, are they still in operation?” And in explanation as to why he would not give to help the poor, he stated firmly, “I help to support the establishments I have named.”

In other words, since they’ve paid taxes, they’ve already done their “charitable” part. Their rationalized version of “charity” is coerced “altruism” mandated by IRS code.

That must be why Mitt Romney, this past week, lumped the two together in his explanation of how much he gives of his means. Declaring that he’s not paid less than 13% of his income in taxes over the past ten years, he followed up with the comment, “If you add in, in addition, the amount that goes to charity, why the number gets well above 20 percent.” It’s actually closer to 26% when the math is done. He really covered both the liberal and conservative perspectives on charity, listing what he’s forced to pay through taxes, and what he freely gives in charitable contributions. It was a brilliant concatenation.

There are some among the uber-wealthy that seem to have the ethical perspective on charity. Garrett Gruener, the founder of Ask.com recently said, “Democracy is not a charity. It’s an enterprise of all Americans to accomplish things that we democratically decide are important,” he said. “Charity is something I do on my own, and I don’t expect others to have the same priorities I do.”

For those who consider themselves religious, yet are convinced they’re being “charitable” by paying their taxes, a primer on the biblical word, agape, is in order, since the same word is translated as charity and love. I don’t know anyone who pays their taxes out of love.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net. 

Published – Idaho State Journal, 08/20/12

When the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2009, one third of the cost of the program was to be funded by “savings” from Medicare. These “savings” were achieved by reducing payouts to service providers and reducing coverage to seniors. The amount to be “saved” was $713 billion over ten years. The Congressional Budget Office has updated that figure to $741 billion.

Why there was so little objection to paring Medicare so drastically? Senior citizens and “baby boomers” about to go on the program should’ve been in an uproar. Yet the media, so punctilious in their colonoscopies performed on any Republican policy or suggestion, literally lapse into a somniferous daze when their ideological comrades come up with a plan. Where were the media outcries? Why was AARP supporting this? Where were the self-proclaimed “champions” of the senior citizen in the halls of Congress when the President’s plan gutted Medicare to the tune of $741 billion?

Confirming this fact, the following is an exchange that occurred between ABC News’ Jake Tapper and President Obama on November 9, 2009.

TAPPER: One of the concerns about health care and how you pay for it — one third of the funding comes from cuts to Medicare.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: “Right.

TAPPER: A lot of times, as you know, what happens in Congress is somebody will do something bold and then Congress, close to election season, will undo it.

OBAMA: Right.

TAPPER: You saw that with the ‘doc fix.’

OBAMA: Right.

TAPPER: Are you willing to pledge that whatever cuts in Medicare are being made to fund health insurance, one third of it, that you will veto anything that tries to undo that?

OBAMA: Yes.

Did you catch that? The President promised to veto his own health care plan if it didn’t include the $741 billion in cuts to Medicare. Medicare was sacrificed on the funding altar of Obamacare.

The Wall Street Journal states, “Many doctors, surgeons and specialists providing critical care to the elderly—such as surgery for hip and knee replacements, sophisticated diagnostics through MRIs and CT scans, and even treatment for cancer and heart disease—will cease serving Medicare patients. If the government is not going to pay, then seniors are not going to get the health services, treatment and care they expect.”

“Everyone should know by now that Medicare suffers dramatic long-term deficits and unfunded liabilities, and is in need of fundamental, structural reforms. But effectively refusing to pay the doctors and hospitals that provide the medical care the program promises to seniors is no way to solve that problem.”

The National Center for Policy Analysis points out that, based on the Medicare Actuary’s official 2012 report, ObamaCare is cutting future Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals for seniors retiring today by an average of $36,000 per retiree, adding up to trillions in Medicare cuts for health care for seniors over the next ten years

When Obama and Biden accuse opponents that their proposals will end Medicare as we know it, the charge rings hollow, for they beat everyone else to the punch! They ensured it with the passage and implementation of Obamacare.

And to make sure that Obamacare has the funds to operate as intended, the law created the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), an unelected body with the power to implement even more cuts in Medicare as deemed necessary for funding Obamacare.

Forbes said this week, “In 2011, Medicare covered 48.7 million Americans — and cost nearly $550 billion. There’s now a $280-billion gap between the premiums and taxes the program takes in and the benefits it pays out. Since the last presidential election, the amount by which benefit payments exceed dedicated tax collections has nearly quadrupled. This fiscal trend is unsustainable. Medicare is inadequately financed over the next ten years, according to the Trustees.”

Medicare reimbursements to service providers are already low, about 65% of the private market, which is why so many doctors are not adding new Medicare patients, and many are getting out of the program altogether. And due to a decade of “kicking the can” down the road and procrastinating resolution of Medicare’s funding problems, this year faces an additional 30% cut in payments, according to Forbes.

In 1997, Congress enacted the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula to limit the growth of payments to doctors participating in Medicare to the overall economic growth rate. But for the past ten years, Congress has waived those adjustments in reimbursements, effectively postponing the effects. A decade of procrastination has resulted in this year’s pending 30-percent cut in Medicare payments unless Congress procrastinates SGR implementation yet again.

As despicable as it was to raid Medicare to fund Obamacare, it’s worse to ignore the problems in the program hoping they’ll miraculously solve themselves. It’s time for real leadership and some backbone to assure Medicare’s future viability.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 08/12/12

At nearly every campaign stop these days, the President convincingly declares, “the middle class is under assault.” Looking at the economic data produced by our own government, there can be no mistake that he’s right. But what he obviously doesn’t realize is that it’s his own policies that are besieging the working, producing, and taxpaying middle class of America.

We all like to think we’re part of that middle class economic stratum, and for the most part, we are. Those who are fortunate enough to have jobs, run businesses, hire people, pay taxes, are not on government assistance, and not rolling in dough, are part of our middle class.

So it’s not surprising that he’d be targeting his reelection message to us. But we mustn’t get caught up in the grandiloquence of his oratory or his populist rhetorical appeals. We must instead look at the fruits of his first three years of labor, which are decimating to the middle class.

The average 16% real rate of unemployment and underemployment, based on the Department of Labor’s U-6 report, during Obama's first three years in office, has been devastating to the middle class. With over 15 million people not working, (28 million according to the Wall Street Journal based on the U-6 data) there are that many fewer middle class taxpayers and consumers, and that many more on government assistance at the poverty level relying on income redistribution from producers.

The job situation will not improve appreciably until the cost of doing business starts dropping. Last year the Small Business Administration reported that regulation costs American business $1.75 trillion per year, and costs small businesses as much as $10,585 per employee. Just the costs of Obamacare, Financial Regulatory Reform, and new EPA regulations, are projected to increase that cost per employee by more than 30%, according to Investor’s Business Daily.

The federal budget has grown from $2.5 trillion to $3.8 trillion, a 40% increase, and our yearly deficit has quintupled our deficit from $240 billion per year to $1.3 trillion per year. Our debt-to-GDP ratio, a significant barometer of the fiscal health of a nation, has spiked to over 100%, a nearly 30% increase in just three years. The middle class will pay the costs of this government expansion. Even if Obama increases the taxes on “the rich” as he desires, the most it will raise is $65 billion, hardly scratching the surface of the deficit.

High energy prices hit the middle class harder than anyone, and the Recent Bureau of Labor Statistics report on consumer prices shows gasoline costs are up 130% since his election. While not totally controllable domestically, Obama’s assault on domestic oil production and weak dollar policy have contributed to an equivalent 130% tax increase on transportation costs.

And that’s not the only energy cost that’s increased. As a result of the administration’s assault on the coal industry, coal-fired power production has dropped from 44.6 to 36% in just one year. Coal is a cheap source of energy, and moving away from it will dramatically increase the cost of electricity. PJM Interconnection, the company that operates the electric grid for 13 Eastern and Midwestern states indicates the new market-clearing price for projected 2015 capacity just cleared $136 per megawatt. That’s more than eight times higher than the price for 2012, which was just $16. When these skyrocketing energy costs hit the middle class, it will be devastating.

ObamaCare was promised to lower the cost of health care for nearly everyone. Instead, private medical insurance costs have soared by as much as 59%, and hospital costs are up nearly three times the rate of core inflation. These costs adversely affect the middle class disproportionately, as the rich have no problem paying, and the middle class is paying the cost of the lower income levels.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported just last month that the U.S. average weekly wage declined nearly 2% percent between the fourth quarter of 2010 and the fourth quarter of 2011. This is only the fifth time wages have declined in the past 33 years.

Succinctly stated, we have shrinking income, inflation in energy and food “skyrocketing,” just like Obama predicted four years ago, a weaker dollar, a ballooning debt, and a national security-risking deficit. The costs of all this “hope and change” are landing squarely on the back of the middle class.

A strong middle class equals a strong America. We can’t have one without the other. And our current policies are killing both. So don’t listen to Obama’s rhetoric, for it rings hollow. Look at his actions, and his policies, and what has been done to cripple the middle class. It truly leaves one wondering how he can pander as he does to the middle class, and keep a straight face while doing it.

Published – Idaho State Journal, 08/05/12

Why would the administration and the Department of Justice not cooperate in cleaning up the voter registration problems across the country? Why would they intentionally make it more difficult to tabulate votes from our military personnel? Why would they block efforts to ensure fair, legitimate, and accurate elections and instead, facilitate voter fraud? There can only be one logical answer, because they lose flexibility in election results, and theirs is “The Chicago Way.”

According to Politico, “The United States’ voter registration system is in chaos — about 24 million registrations are no longer valid and nearly 2 million dead people are still on voter rolls. Along with the one of every eight voter registrations that is not valid or has significant inaccuracies, there are 2.75 million people currently registered to vote in more than one state, the Pew Center on the States study found. And the millions of problematic registrations aren’t the only issue — researchers estimate at least 51 million eligible U.S. citizens aren’t registered to vote. That’s nearly one in four. Additionally, about 12 million records have incorrect addresses, meaning it’s unlikely any mailings can reach these voters, the research in the report shows. There also are more than 1.8 million deceased people who still have active registration on voter rolls.”

Yet the administration is blocking efforts by Florida, New Mexico, Texas, Pennsylvania and several other states, to clean up their voter registration lists. Apparently removing the deceased from the voter roles proscribes the type of flexibility the Chicago boys require to assure election results. Five counties in Illinois have more registered voters than eligible voters. These facts demythologize the truisms about the “dead” voting in Illinois, especially Chicago, elections.

In Florida specifically, voting laws were passed last year to restrict early voting. Demographic data showed anomalous voting trends occurring and Florida officials felt the system was susceptible to fraud. The new laws also required third party groups like ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), to turn in their registration lists within 48 hours for verification. Remember, ACORN is a group that Barack Obama worked for as a “leadership training supervisor” and as a community organizer for “Project Vote!” a national program of ACORN for voter registration expansion, with a long and storied history of voter registration fraud. For some reason, Florida’s immediate verification system caused third-party registrations to stop altogether.

The administration, through its Department of Justice (it would be impossible to make this up and have it be more ironic than it is!) is also opposing voter ID laws. They’ve filed in several states to block implementation of laws that require some sort of personal identification at the time of voting, even though thirty states currently require it. Some sort of identification is required for most government services, and by all private sector firms that accept checks for payment. The assertion that some sort of identification at the polls can be deemed “voter suppression” can only be valid if the “voters” being suppressed are somehow illegal to vote, registered in multiple venues, or deceased. Far from “voter suppression,” as Attorney General Eric Holder asserts, voter ID laws are being implemented in order to protect election integrity. Most states with new voter ID laws even offer free photo IDs to citizens who need them.

The President’s Executive Order two months ago implementing key elements of the “Dream Act” by virtually gutting deportation of select illegal immigrants, was not just a political move in an election year, but plays directly to the goal of ensuring electoral outcomes. Amnesty advocate’s euphemism of choice, “comprehensive immigration reform,” will create millions of new Democrat voters. As Obama adviser and SEIU executive vice president Eliseo Medina said recently regarding amnesty: “Can you imagine 8 million new voters who care about our issues and will be voting? We will be creating a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle.”

Part of Ohio’s voter registration law that received an overhaul recently allows for members of the military from that state three extra days to vote early. The rationale is that too many of the military votes are not counted because they are not received in time to be tabulated. Yet the Obama for America Campaign and the Democratic National Committee have filed suit to block implementation of that law, which may again result in non-tabulation of military votes in that key swing state. With indications that 70% of the active military supports Obama’s opponent in the November election, it’s clear what the DOJ motive is in blocking Ohio’s new law.

Every illegal and fraudulent vote diminishes the integrity of an election. Every American, regardless of party affiliation should have the assurance that our elections are clean, fair, and legal. The President, his administration, and his party should be working to eradicate election fraud, not perpetuating it.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.