You:
This budget will reduce opportunities for people looking for jobs. Nearly three-quarters of all new private sector jobs are created by small businesses. In Texas, we understand that small businesses are the employment engines of our economy, and so we have put in place policies that encourage entrepreneurs to invest in our state and create more opportunities. As ABC News reported last week, only three of the top 39 job markets in the nation gained jobs last year. All three are in Texas, and one of them is Austin.
Your Constituent:
So repairing highways and bridges, building and repairing schools and providing funds to states so they don't have to layoff teachers and other government employees reduces opportunities for folks looking for jobs. That suggests that if we fired every government employee in the country including teachers and stopped all government construction contracts there would be so many jobs available that no one would be looking for work. Hmm, what an interesting concept that is. Let me ask you something Senator; where did you learn this convoluted form of economics, at the hands of Phil Gramm perhaps?
You:
I have worked to bring successful Texas policies to Washington, especially our policy of keeping taxes low. Once again this year I offered an amendment to make it harder for Congress to increase taxes in future budgets. Had this amendment been adopted last year, 60 votes in the Senate would be required today to increase taxes on America's families and small businesses.
Your Constituent:
Oh yeah, he worked to keep taxes low, particularly for folks running hedge funds and investment bankers. And while he worked so hard to keep taxes low he also didn't want to invest in infrastructure, so now we're way behind on bridge repairs and we have to hope that another interstate bridge over a river doesn't go crashing down while people are on it. Yeah that's working for the people. Senator, how about an amendment to require 60 votes in the Senate to decrease taxes on the top 1 percent of wage earners, if that had been passed 60 years ago we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.
You:
Congress chose not to make it harder to raise taxes, and so this year Obama proposed raising net taxes by $1.4 trillion over the next decade. Much of this burden will fall on our state's most successful small businesses. He has proposed raising the top two tax brackets to a nominal rate of 36 and 39.6 percent, and by limiting deductions for state and local taxes and other expenses, the effective marginal tax rates on thousands of our small businesses will be over 40 percent.
Your Constituent:
Now we get to the disingenuous part, from the statistics I've seen virtually no truly small business owner will qualify for the level of taxation he's complaining about and those that do will only feel the increase on those dollars over $250,000. Remember taxes pay for the highways and other common services that these business owner uses to make all that money; so why shouldn't the business owner be taxed enough to pay for what they use?
You:
Small businesses make a big contribution to our economy, and charitable organizations do the same for our society as a whole. More than 150 years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville marveled at the spirit of volunteerism in our country, and how quick we were to form "public associations" for the common good. Today, faith-based and community-based organizations heal the sick, feed the hungry and serve the most vulnerable among us.
Your Constituent:
That's great and if the government did its job these folks wouldn't have to pick up the slack but your penny pinching ways don't allow government to help those in need so individuals end up filling in the gaps as best they can.
You:
Charitable organizations depend on the generosity of donors to serve our communities, and for decades we have encouraged this generosity by making charitable donations deductible. But Obama wants to limit this deduction for charitable contributions, which could cost charities nationwide anywhere from $4 billion to $9 billion.
Your Constituent:
Again I say that if the government had the funds to really do its job then the charities wouldn't have to.
You:
You can see the potential impact right here in Austin. The Austin Pregnancy Resource Center is a 501c(3) organization that provides counseling and services to women who are pregnant or who may think they are pregnant. Some of their clients are students. Some are homeless. Some are victims of domestic violence and other abuse.
Your Constituent:
Oh now you want to talk about family planning while talking about how charitable giving will drop because of lower tax breaks for donations. If folks are really all that charitable they won't change their behavior at all and if they do then it was really just about the tax break.
You:
The center provides these confidential services at no cost to women in need. It relies completely on donations from individuals and businesses to fund its programs. Thanks to the generosity of the Austin community, the center now has two full-time employees, one part-time employee and about 60 volunteers.
Your Constituent:
You'll notice he's still talking about services that should be offered within the government's social services system but for the fact that he doesn't want to fund those services.
You:
The recession has made it harder for the center to raise money - even as the demand for its services increases. In just one day this month, the center received nearly 20 calls from women who could not afford to buy diapers. In the words of Executive Director Lori DeVillez, "There are many times where a bag of diapers or a can of formula truly means the difference between, 'Do I eat today, or provide for my baby?'"
Your Constituent:
If you'd vote for a budget that fully funded education, family planning and other social services many of these folks wouldn't be in this situation in the first place. You won't fund abortions but you aren't willing to help take care of the kids you've forced these women to bear, why can't you see the hypocrisy of that position.
You:
The center works to ensure that its clients don't have to face such a terrible choice. DeVillez estimates that up to 10 of the center's largest donors would see their taxes go up under the president's plan. She would like to see policies that would expand her pool of potential donors - rather than dry it up.
Your Constituent:
What I'd like to see is the federal government fully fund social services agencies and stop limiting funding for abortions. No one wants to see and increase in abortions but if the woman can't feed the child or has been traumatized by some form of abuse how is it helpful to force her to have the child? How is it helpful to provide abstinence only education full of factual errors, incomplete information and misinformation and then not be willing to fund the consequences of it?
You:
I believe that charitable organizations like the Austin Pregnancy Resource Center, as well as thousands of successful small businesses across our state, help make Texas a better place. They deserve our support. They do not deserve to suffer the impact of higher taxes. I will continue to bring the experience of successful Texas policies to our nation's capital, and help more people contribute to the common good.
Your Constituent:
What successful Texas policies are you referring to Senator? Are they the policies that caused the loss of over 100,000 jobs in Texas in the first two months of the year? Or are they the policies that have caused Texas to have one of the highest rates of teenage births in the nation? Or how about the policies that cause Texas to have one of the lowest levels of academic achievement in the country? I could go on but you should get the point. |
