What are the barriers to dental care?

If you read the news you may have seen images and read articles about people queuing for hours-on-end, often overnight in difficult weather conditions, just to attend a free dental clinic. Dental charities such as the Mission of Mercy and Dentistry from the Heart have confirmed that free clinic days are getting busier, with hundreds of people often waiting in line before the clinics even open. This demonstrates the need for affordable dental treatment and the dire situation thousands of Americans find themselves in.

One of the main issues facing people is cost. For many, visiting a dentist is simply not affordable. In recent years, since the recession hit, a large number of people have lost their jobs and their employment benefits. This has meant that millions of Americans have been left uninsured. With dental fees increasing year on year the uninsured have great difficulty affording the treatment they need.

Another problem is accessing affordable care. Systems like Medicaid are in place to make dentistry more affordable, but the demand is too high and low reimbursement rates put dentists off accepting Medicaid patients. Free clinics definitely help, but the demand is far higher than the supply and the crowd they treat are really only the tip of the iceberg.

Why is oral health important?

One of the most distressing aspects of the current situation facing America is that oral health problems are largely preventable and that people who miss out on routine appointments because they cannot afford it are more likely to end up needing much more expensive treatment for complex illnesses.

Oral health is important for a number of reasons. A healthy, attractive smile gives you confidence and boosts your self-esteem and strong, healthy teeth and gums ensure that the mouth is able to carry out essential functions. Dental health is also important for general health. Numerous studies have now suggested a link between oral health and general health, with many research teams finding that poor mouth health can increase the risk of heart disease, strokes, diabetes and problems during pregnancy and childbirth.

Maintaining good dental health is important from an early age. Children who suffer from oral health problems are less likely to succeed at school and more likely to suffer from low self-esteem.

What help is available if you are struggling to see a dentist?

The majority of people who wait in line for hours on end outside a free dental clinic have not seen a dentist for several years and many of them suffer from severe dental pain. The problem is that there are not enough free and affordable dental clinics to cater for all the people who cannot afford regular dental fees. There are some avenues, however, which may be beneficial for people who are struggling; these include:

• Free clinics and non-profit organisations
• Sliding scale clinics (do some research and contact clinics in your area to see if any offer discounts)
• Cardholder schemes
• Dental schools (students provide treatment under supervision at a fraction of the cost)

It appears that the recession has had a profound impact on the way people view oral health and it is not a priority. Most people wouldn’t think twice about seeing a doctor, but going to the dentist seems to have become an unaffordable luxury for many and the situation is worrying. Some people also feel that oral health has not been a priority for governments in the past, despite the fact that studies show that there is a link between poor oral health and serious medical conditions. The Affordable Care Act contains provisions related to oral health, including the inclusion of children’s oral health care as part of an ‘essential benefits package’ and it remains to be seen if changes to the health system will bring about significant changes to access to affordable dental care.

What Is Elder Abuse? Signs of Abuse in a Nursing Home

According to the National Center on Elder Abuse (NCEA):  Elder abuse refers to any intentional negligent act by a caregiver or any other person who causes risk of harm or harm to a vulnerable adult.   While laws vary from state to state, elder abuse may include, but may not be limited to:

• Physical Abuse (Infliction of physical pain or injury, Deprivation of a basic need)
• Emotional Abuse (Infliction of mental pain, verbally and nonverbally)
• Sexual Abuse (Non-consensual sexual contact)
• Exploitation (Illegal taking or misuse of funds, property and/or assets)
• Neglect (The refusal to offer basic needs)
• Abandonment

The warning signs of nursing home abuse and negligence can vary from physical evidence (such as bruises, broken bones), to changes in behavior (depression or strained relationships with nursing staff), to financial changes (a sign of theft or misuse of funds).  In many cases, it is up to the family members and friends to be aware of the signs, as many victims of elder abuse remain silent out of fear.  If you suspect that someone has become a victim of elder abuse, it is your responsibility to take action immediately by reporting the nursing home and protecting the victim with the help of a personal injury attorney specializing in nursing home negligence and abuse.

Why Are Elders a Target for Abuse?

While it is heartbreaking and incomprehensible, there are no clear answers as to why elders are a target for abuse in nursing homes. We can only assume that it is because they are the weakest amongst us and thus it is easier to take advantage of them.  In 2010, The Department of Health and Human Services looked at the cases of 1,611 aides in nursing homes who were disciplined for abuse, neglect, and theft. All told, 19 percent of the aides had prior criminal convictions that would have appeared on a background check.  Many nursing home positions are low-paying and standards vary greatly based on state requirements and in house facility rules.  With the graying of our society there is an increased need for nursing homes, and many are overcrowded and understaffed. All of these factors can lend themselves to an unsafe and unstable environment for elders.  Exact yearly statistics are not available for elderly abuse and the numbers that are reported are only estimates because many violations go unreported.

What You Can Do

As a family member or friend of an elder in a nursing home facility, it is important that you are educated on the laws protecting elders and are aware of signs indicating abuse.   While you may not be able to prevent the possibility of abuse, you have the power to stop it!  Protect the ones you love and contact local authorities and an attorney who specializes in nursing home negligence and abuse.

Hospital reimbursement for patient care is tied to patient satisfaction in some ways, so money and the patient’s perception of quality are not separate issues. Some studies have shown that it is the little things that lead to increased patient satisfaction, such as the nurses and physicians demonstrating that they are listening to their patients through physically being on their level or posting visible messages about the patients’ preferences.

Image and content compliments of Healthcare Administration Degrees

It’s one aspect of who you are but at the same time, it’s affects your entire life.

Everything you do; how you do it and what you can and can’t do in your life can be traced back to being gay. Being gay is a lifelong coming out process that affects everyone around you. Your family, your friends and your loved ones.

I get up in the morning, make a cup of tea and check my emails and my social media. I delete that hate mail calling me a dirty faggot and check the interesting ones. My partner and I might decide that we want to go into the city to go window shopping or get some sushi, she’s still really antsy about public displays of affection so I try to remember to stay at least two feet away at all times in public so I don’t make her anxious. If she’s anxious and someone says something abusive, it’ll make her feel even more horrible.

It makes me sad.

We get on the bus and I watch the opposite sex couples with prams hold hands and smile back at the people smiling at them. They’re in love and produced a child; everyone knows what they’ve been up to but no-one cares. Anti-gay politicians want same-sex adoption illegal, some want being gay criminalised. They want to sweep us under a rug because they are uncomfortable around us but they use their children as an excuse to do it. They compare us to paedophiles or are just plain crazy and think we’ll hurt their children. When we come out to our parents, we have to make sure we are in a safe place beforehand because we might get hurt.

No baby showers for us.

Last week someone screamed “Dirty dykes! Filthy faggots!” outside of a car window at my partner and I. I kissed her in a coffee shop once and the cashier gave us a filthy look. A random stranger told us he was proud of how brave we were to hug on a train after he found out we were a couple.

That was nice but no-one has to say it to opposite couples.

Being gay isn’t always so melodramatic, once you come out and move on from the fact you’ve lost friends or family and get desensitised from the homophobia that will happen right in front of your face, there are positives. You find out who your real friends are, your real family and you witness the kindness of strangers who stick up for in the face of bigotry.

You find real people. Decent people who don’t care who you are.

Being gay is very similar to being straight in the sense that it is a lifelong coming out process, only straight people can’t see that they are coming out. Actually everything is a coming out process; most people just can’t see it. Whenever you mention your opposite sex or same sex partner in conversation to someone – you’re coming out to them, they may not know if you’re bisexual or straight or gay but that’s irrelevant. Even if you’re bisexual with an opposite sex partner, people will assume you’re straight. If you’re bisexual with a same-sex partner, people will assume you’re gay. Your sexuality doesn’t matter; the sex of your partner does to the wider world.

We come out in every facet of our lives. Wearing religious symbols around our necks is a form of coming out as religious. Mentioning our children or lack of is a form of coming out as a parent or childfree. It never ends because we come out in some form to every person we meet.

And some of those people are less than tolerant if your coming out doesn’t match their coming out.

I know when I walk out the door as a lesbian and come out to people in everyday conversation, I run the risk of encountering homophobia (like here). I run the risk of not being served in a coffee shop or having rude remarks yelled out about my partner and I when we’re in public. My friends run the risk of losing friends or having family not talk to them based on their friendship with me. I may not be invited to my partner’s family gatherings because they don’t like that we’re together. I run the risk of being referred to as only my partners “friend” by people who won’t acknowledge our relationship or are uncomfortable with saying “this is (insert names) partner”. I think they think they’ll turn inside out if they say the words “gay” or “lesbian”.

You run the risk of hearing the words “I have no problem with gays but..”, well you obviously have enough of a problem to mention it. You run the risk of hearing “No offense but gays..” like “No offense but..” is meant to soften the blow of the offensive comment they’re about to make. Of course they’ll get annoyed when you point out that yes, they do have a problem with gays or they have said something inappropriate. One thing you learn being gay is that people have an undeserved sense of entitlement which they think means they can say whatever opinion they want and another person can’t call them out on it. People think they can say whatever opinion they want and no-one is allowed to display any feelings of hurt or sadness over that opinion because it may make the opinion sayer look like an arsehole. People don’t like looking like a bad person or insensitive person which is why they get defensive or annoyed when someone reactions to their opinion or someone calls them out on it.

As a gay woman eventually I’ll run into more homophobia on top of the encounters I’ve already had. You get to a point in your life where when you encounter it, it’s still is a shock but it doesn’t affect you, you move to a place of not anger but pity. You pity the poor deluded homophobe who never had a chance with their limited brain power. They obviously can’t think hard enough to see that their thoughts that are the basis for their bigotry are complete bullshit. You pity them because they’ve been raised to hate or because they have strange assumptions or insecurities about gays that leads them to hate or display homophobic behaviour. I don’t feel angry at them anymore. Indeed I make a sport out of shooting down a homophobes illogical thoughts about gays to reveal the stupidness behind it all. Making them question themselves can be fun especially in public when you make them feel stupid.

I’m a bit of a bitch you see.

By far my favourite types of people are insecure straight women (and by favourite I mean frustrating). The type of women you never win with as a gay woman. You know the women, the ones who’ll find out your gay and then this conversation ensures:

Insecure straight women: “Do you find me attractive?”
Me: “Not really”
ISW: “WELL WHY NOT??”
Me: “Okay yes, you are somewhat attractive”
ISW: “OMG YOU’RE HITTING ON ME”

Don’t worry baby dykes; you’ll meet your first Insecure Straight Woman soon.

As I mentioned before everything you do, how you do it and what you can and can’t do in your life can be traced back to being gay. Which tea house or coffee shop I dine at (not Gloria Jeans because they support anti-gay policies), I used to take the long route to the bus stop to avoid my homophobic neighbours down the street, the slurs every time I passed the house become boring after a while. An ultra-conservative bookshop owner refused to sell me a book I needed (or any book for that matter) when I mentioned my partner after he noticed the ring on my finger. I got told to leave so I found the book online.

So yes, everything I do hinges on me being gay and how the people I’m interacting with at the time responses to it. Of course I don’t go around to random people exclaiming that I’m gay to them but when it comes up in conversation, you always pause to see what their reaction is. The reaction determines whether or not you’ll get served in a bookstore, it determines whether someone says “that’s lovely” or hurls abuse at you.  That reaction is based on their thoughts on a person’s sexuality, those thoughts determines how your family treats you, how your partners family treats you and how wider society treats you.

It has its negatives but it has its positives as well. Like finding love and having an accepting people around you.

So next time someone says “The only thing gays have to worry about is not being able to marry”, show them this article and watch their reaction.

10 points to you if they say “I didn’t think about that”.

It had me thinking about times in my life where I experienced a “breakthrough.” I came up with two. Since one of them does not involve an ex-girlfriend, I wanted share that one with you today.

Introduction

Before I became a copywriter I worked for a company that specialized in research software. The company was run by research professionals, and I was hired straight out of college to run research projects from companies that preferred to outsource their data collection rather than purchase the software.

It was an abusive work environment, one that I dreaded every day. This toxic workplace sucked away my own personal motivation and ambitions, and most days I would head to work and do the minimum amount that I could do in order to make a salary that barely paid my modest bills. It was so stressful that thinking about it to this day makes me shudder.

My Own Life Breakthrough

One day I was in someone else’s car, looking out the window. We were driving to a town about 100 miles from Seattle in order to try out a few coffee shops and tour the city, since rarely did we wake up early enough to venture that far from home. A song came on the radio. I don’t want to tell anyone what song it was because quite frankly I sometimes like terrible music, but it was an upbeat and generally uplifting song.

Before the song came on I was feeling significant tension – tension that had become the norm because of my work experience. Then, listening to the upbeat music, I started to feel better. I started to feel significantly better. In a way, I felt as if my tension had been lifted.

It was then that it hit me – something that I hadn’t felt for years: motivation.

Just listening to that music awakened inside me something I had lost, and when I got it back for the first time I realized I wanted to hold onto it. That moment I felt as motivated and inspired as I ever did to make my life something I could be proud of. I felt like I was ready to take control – to become more than I was now, and someone that I would look back on without regrets. I experienced my own breakthrough, and since then I haven’t looked back, becoming a business owner, touring the world, and living a life of great relaxation.

A New Life Because of a Single Song

I was lucky. Breakthroughs don’t usually come to people that wait for them. Breakthroughs are generally something that few people experience. But then again, there are rare instances – like mine – that come at completely unexpected moments, and when they do they can change your life forever.

Have you ever had something that you would describe as a breakthrough? Have you ever had that moment where your life completely changed, all because of a feeling or realization? If so, I’d love to hear about it in the comments.

Bork’s nomination fight began with Senator Edward Kennedy’s July 1, 1987 speech on the Senate floor in which he painted a stark picture of “Robert Bork’s America” based on Bork’s reputation as an unapologetic advocate of an originalist judicial philosophy and his legal writings.  In this America, “…women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens….”  After Kennedy’s speech, a powerful backlash, led by liberal politicians, organizations, and intellectuals who pursued a strategy that gave birth to a new verb and noun, managed to scuttle Bork’s nomination.

Cravitz argued that “…with all the tools available on the Internet for facts to overcome distortions” the “intentional distortions” that characterized the borking of Bork would have been “instantly correct[ed].”  However, Cravitz’s argument regarding the power of the Internet is based on the deeply flawed assumption that everyone agrees on the definition of the term “fact.”  In American culture, the meaning of fact has been distorted almost beyond recognition, if it hasn’t already been outright lost.  Witness the rise of the “fact-checking” fad among news organizations, political organizations, and bloggers whose conclusions are more often than not opinions masquerading as facts.  Without consensus on what constitutes a fact, it is extremely difficult for facts to overcome distortions, regardless of the speed with which the Internet can disseminate them.

For a good example of the distorted meaning of fact, consider the uncomfortable exchange between MSNBC program hosts Chris Matthews and Andrea Mitchell on September 3, 2012 that occurred on Mitchell’s show Andrea Mitchell Reports (watch video.)  Matthews appeared on Mitchell’s show to promote his special one-hour profile of President Obama airing later that night on MSNBC.  After a few minutes of promotion, his interview turned to a discussion of current political topics, including a comparison of the Democratic and Republican conventions, which Matthews eventually turned into an attack on Republicans generally.  He charged Republicans with intentions to suppress minority voting by supporting voter ID laws and to encourage white anger by attacking welfare programs.  When Matthews pushed Mitchell to agree with him, Mitchell stuttered that he was presenting “opinion” (if she wanted to use a more sophisticated term, she could have labeled it “interpretation.”)  Matthews rebutted: “It’s not opinion, it’s factual.”

Whether or not Matthews’ statements should be considered factual or interpretive depends on how fact is defined.  What then is a fact?  Or to put it another way, how should fact be defined to give the Internet the best chance to actually accomplish what Cravitz asserts?  To begin to answer this question, one could start with a dictionary.  Google defines fact as either “[a] thing that is indisputably the case” or “[i]nformation used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.”  From Matthews’ perspective, his claims about Republican political strategy were indisputably the case.  As for Mitchell’s attempt to dispute his claims, or at least qualify them as interpretation, Matthews could argue that Mitchell was just being stubborn.  Or he could argue more boldly that she was oblivious to fact in the same way an ideologue would be, like a Stalinist when confronted with facts of Stalin’s crimes.

But such an argument would be a hard sell since Mitchell is obviously an intelligent person.  And it is not hard to conceive that in any scenario in which there are two opposing viewpoints, especially in politics, some proponents of either viewpoint would consider their positions indisputable.  The second part of Google’s definition—information used as evidence—brings us closer to a workable definition of fact.  It actually hints at the traditional understanding of fact once shared by historians, journalists, and even physical scientists.  This understanding viewed a fact as a metaphorical brick which when assembled with many other such bricks produced a structure of interpretation, or in the language of scientists, theory.

To be sure, this definition is still a little hazy.  So it should prove productive to turn to an explanation of what constitutes a fact offered by the eminent historians Jacques Barzun and Henry Graff in their classic work The Modern Researcher, which should be familiar to generations of college history and journalism majors.  While careful to point out that many facts are often “dripping with ideas,” Barzun and Graff asserted that the purest facts “…are those statements that express a conventional relation in conventional terms.”  They provided three examples: “Thomas Jefferson was born on April 2, 1743,” “The Monroe Doctrine was promulgated on December 2, 1823,” and “President Garfield was shot by Charles J. Guiteau.”  These statements “…expressed fixed relations of time, things, and persons…” “[t]hrough conventional phrasings like ‘born’ and ‘was shot,’ conventional names like ‘Monroe Doctrine,’ and conventional terms for day, year, and length.”  In so doing, these statements “…may be said to be strictly factual because each term is clear and distinct and remains so by tacit agreement.”

Though intricate, Barzun and Graff’s definition of fact sought to limit factual statements to the simplest descriptive statements wringed of ideas to the greatest extent possible by using the most conventional language possible.  Thus, they probably would have objected to the factual status of the statement “President Garfield was murdered by Charles J. Guiteau” because “murder” has much more complex connotations than the plainer passive verb “was shot” (although they might have approved of the factual status of the statement “Charles J. Guiteau was convicted of murder on January 25, 1882.”)

Actually, Barzun and Graff expanded on the Guiteau example themselves to demonstrate how ideas could seep into factual statements, especially causal ideas: “But if in the Garfield example we add to the phrase ‘shot by Charles J. Guiteau,’ the words ‘a disappointed office-seeker,’ we immediately pass from conventional fact into a different realm of discourse.  True, it is a fact that Guiteau had sought a government post and had failed to get it.  But putting these events into a phrase next to the statement of Garfield’s assassination generates an idea.  The effect is to say: ‘Guiteau’s disappointment was the motive for the assassination.’  This is an inference, a hypothesis, an idea….A psychoanalyst might maintain that the cause alleged was not sufficient; that Garfield was shot because he had a beard that reminded the killer of his stepfather; that, in any case, all human acts result from more than one motive.”

Barzun and Graff’s definition of fact challenges Matthews’ claim to the factual status of his statements.  First of all, they were not simple descriptive statements expressing conventional relations in conventional terms, especially given the tone of condemnation with which they were made.  They were also deeply soaked with ideas, namely causal ideas, in the same way that Barzun and Graff’s modified Guiteau example was.  In substantiating his claims about voter ID laws in particular, Matthews could have made much simpler descriptive statements such as:

• The Pennsylvania Voter Identification Protection Act was introduced into the PA House by Republican Daryl Metcalfe.
• The Act passed the PA Senate 26-23 and the PA House 104-88.
• All the votes in favor of the law were cast by Republicans.
• All Democrats voted against it.
• PA House Republican Majority Leader Mike Turzai said the voter ID law will “…allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania….’”

Matthews then could have invoked a general causal principle of historical interpretation that laws passed with one-sided partisan support imply ulterior political motivations, not broad civic motivations.  Based on this principle as well as the facts, he then could have presented the interpretation that the PA Voter ID was a partisan law that Republicans hoped would discourage voters traditionally loyal to the Democratic Party—the elderly, the disabled, and racial minorities—from voting.  This interpretation could even have been considered the most plausible interpretation given the facts and the validity of his causal principle (which would have been inferred from a number of similar historical events.)

If Matthews would have taken this approach, he would have acknowledged a clear distinction between facts on the one hand and an interpretation on the other.  It is the erasure of the distinction between facts and interpretation that has occurred in American culture over the last several years that has made it so difficult to have constructive dialogues between competing interpretations.  Likewise, it is what makes Cravitz’s argument about the Internet so off-the-mark.  If everyone maintains that all of their interpretations are factual, i.e. indisputably the case, then there is practically no way to have a constructive dialogue and judge whether some interpretations are better than others.  If, however, a distinction can be maintained between facts and the interpretations upon which they are built, then interpretations can be evaluated based on the accuracy of their respective facts, the combined strength of their respective facts, and the reasoning with which they are put together.

There is, however, another definition of fact distinguishable from those that utilize the brick metaphor.  Actually, this definition lends support to Matthews’ belief that his statements were factual, not opinionated, so in fairness it merits discussion.  This definition varies by the dictionary, but in essence it can be stated as either: “the quality of being actual” or “something that has actual existence.”  The perfect example of this definition is evolution.  Under the brick-like definition of fact, evolution would be an interpretation (or in scientific language a theory) derived from the facts of innumerable fossils of thousands of species and of observed differences in living species.  To counter the objections of people with religious agendas seeking to exploit the ambiguities of the terms interpretation and theory, scientists who embrace the brick-like definition of fact might describe evolution as a proven interpretation/theory.  But there are other scientists who embrace the actuality sense of fact.  Evolution is a process of nature that actually exists, or in other words it is a verified independent reality.  Therefore, they would assert that evolution is both interpretation/theory and fact (for a good discussion of this alternative definition of fact, consult the Wikipedia article “Evolution as fact and theory.”)

Under this definition of fact, Matthews once again could defend his statements as factual.  He could maintain that his statements about Republican campaigning in 2012 were factual because that was what actually happened.  But here’s the problem: evolution is an interpretation/theory/fact of the physical sciences and Matthews’ criticism of Republicans is an interpretation of the social sciences.  There are some very important differences between the physical and social sciences.  For example, in physical science, there is a clear distinction between the inquiring subject (the scientist) and the object (of nature) being studied, so objectivity is more easily achieved.  In social science, the inquiring subject (the journalist, the historian, the sociologist, or whomever) is a member of society studying society, so objectivity is far more difficult to obtain.  There are many more differences between the physical and social sciences, but there is no need to delve deeply into them.  The point should be clear enough that the conclusiveness of the social sciences comes nowhere near that of the physical sciences.  It is therefore not credible to make the same sort of claims made in the physical sciences that interpretations in the social sciences can be both interpretation and fact.

If the internet, at least as it exists in the United States, is ever to have the power that Cravitz claims, American culture must first re-embrace the meaning of fact.  It must redraw a clear line between facts and interpretation, and it must regard facts as the bricks with which interpretations are constructed.    Although that will not completely prevent disputes between competing interpretations, at least interpretations can be evaluated according to the accuracy of their facts, the combined strength of their facts, and the reasoning with which they are put together.  Otherwise, American culture will move closer and closer to substantiating Nietzsche’s famous claim that there are no facts, only interpretations.  And if that happens, the internet will become powerless to prevent “borking” or myriad other forms of character assassination like “swiftboating” and “McCarthyism.”

When I first started The Soapbox, I simply needed an outlet for my thoughts. A busy lifestyle left little time for social interaction, and with my peers just as busy as I was, opportunities for intellectual engagement were limited. While this blog became my own personal soapbox, I soon realized that others might like the same opportunity to have their say. Now that I have a few posts of my own on here to set the tone, I feel comfortable inviting others to come write.

These days, blogging is all about picking a niche and sticking to it, but The Soapbox has bucked that trend. The broad appeal of this blog is why I am excited about opening the floor to guest posts. Even established bloggers may find themselves wanting to write about something, but without a good place to fit it. At the same time, an up-and-comer might be looking to expose his/her ideas to a different audience. All are welcome here.

I want to reassure you that I believe in quality over quantity. While I am opening to dissenting opinons, I will only add posts that add value. There will be no thinly veiled attempts to sell you a bottle of snake oil.

I am very excited to see what kind of posts we receive. I think they will be both informative and interesting. They may even help further mature my own thoughts, which would then be reflected in my future posts. I trust that you will give these guest posts the same warm reception you have extended to me, and as always, I value your insights and inputs in the comments.

To Ms. Adams’s credit, an addendum and apology were issued. But even still, the bigger point was missed: when we judge only from our own perspective, we are bound to erroneously judge others.

Imagine if she had said “homemaker” was the least stressful job!

Adams defended her post by shifting blame to the data she had received from CareerCast: their data focused on things like “physical demands, environmental conditions, and risking one’s life.” Perhaps to some of you, it seems obvious that these should be more important than how many hours a week someone works or whether they feel pressure to produce results in an area where results are equal parts luck and skill. But perhaps there is a segment out there who also sees that there is at least room for debate, or that there should be no debate at all: the conversation would be akin to comparing apples and oranges.

This is the problem we run into when trying to establish national programs to help certain segments of the population. It inevitably devolves into a shouting match across demographics, as people from one group fail to recognize the needs of others.

Take for example legislation aimed at helping families that are near or under the poverty line. While those who are struggling to make ends meet may welcome this, some who are (perhaps only marginally) better off might chafe, suggesting instead that the poor need only work harder. This might sound like a tired refrain, but every election season, we see rallies full of people talking about how hard work got them where they are, so anyone who was unsuccessful must just be lazy.

It is likely true that some people who are poor are that position because of laziness. And it is also true that some people have escaped a seemingly impossible financial situation through hard work and perseverance. But attempting to blindly apply lessons from one set of experiences to another is an exercise in futility. One could say that people should focus more on education, but tell that to the kid who needs to work just to support his or her family. One could say to avoid gangs, but tell that to someone growing up in a violent neighborhood.

None of this is meant to be an excuse. Any genuine person will tell you they are not looking for your pity. But instead of judging, we should be aiming to understand. If we can move beyond pointing fingers and assigning blame, maybe then we can figure out reasonable ways to help people achieve their goals, whatever they may be.

Recently, Pamela Hoernschemeyer of St. Peters, MO was sentenced to 37 months in prison for using fraudulent refunds to steal over $100,000 from SSM Health Care. She was also ordered to repay $135,727.95, though it is unclear whether she actually possesses the funds to repay this amount.

While spending any time in prison must be awful and 37 months is no joke, I can’t help but feel that she got off easy. In Missouri, theft of over $25,000 is a Class B felony, punishable by up to 15 years prison (and no less than 5). Ms. Hoernschemeyer’s sentence comes out to just over 3 years. Since the threshold for a Class B felony is $25,000, surely she was eligible for much more than the 5 year minimum? Why is her sentence so short in comparison?

While it seems her sentence may have been knocked down somewhat for pleading guilty (it’s actually unclear from the article whether she pleaded guilty to these charges or other charges), I firmly believe that if Ms. Hoernschemeyer had instead walked into a bank and demanded $100,000 in cash (ignoring for a moment the implausibility of her actually getting that sum), prosecutors would have been much more aggressive in trying to put her away for a long time.

To me, this is symptomatic of the different ways we treat “white collar” vs. “blue collar” crime. Now, to be clear, I’m not a conspiracy theorist, so you won’t hear me talking about the legal system trying to “keep the poor man down.” But the truth is that the system as currently devised does carry certain imbalances. Corruption, especially among the rich and powerful, is accepted as a necessary fact of life, and I believe the legal consequences of such behavior reflect that tacit acquiescence.

Those who were intimately involved with the speculation that ultimately led to the current United States financial crisis should be serving life sentences, as the losses they are responsible for have crushed countless families’ plans A, B, and C. And yet, aside from a few exceptions, they have avoided serious penalties. Even those who lost their jobs tended to do so with sizable golden parachutes.

The problem (there’s always a catch) is that much of what the financial sector did wasn’t explicitly illegal, making it hard to prosecute anyone. This only serves to further my point. We’ve made sure to have laws that cover any type of petty crime, yet taking wild risks with other people’s money (all while putting the blinders over their eyes about how out of whack things really were) is just part of the game.

Now I’ll be the first to admit there’s a lot more to discuss here, but as I already pointed out at the top, I simply can’t start to go through all the possible angles here. Some things worth considering include the following:

• The impact of harsh criminal penalties on smart risk-taking
• How to effectively draw the line between “making a bad call” and “swindling people out of their money”
• How to stay ahead of the curve and close the loopholes that are keeping those to blame free from repercussions

And then of course, there’s the question whether focusing on punishment is really the right approach at all. Wouldn’t it be better to prevent white collar crime in the first place?

Uh-oh, here comes the liberal in me roaring out. While I at least make some attempt to remain moderate in my posts on this blog, I can already tell that this post is going to end up far to the left. If that’s not your cup of tea, I understand, but perhaps you’d at least like to jump down to the comments and tell me why I’m so woefully mistaken. For those of you with similar political leanings as me, perhaps you’d like to chime in your support instead. Either way, off we go!

In his post, Mitchell describes a common refrain from the left: “I don’t like Mitt Romney because he’s rich.” Mitchell goes on to rectify this misconception, pointing out that we all strive to be rich someday, and we shouldn’t fault those who have worked hard to reach the position they are in. After all, if given the opportunity, wouldn’t each of us switch positions with Mitt in an instant?

Just a bunch of whiners.

He goes on to lament an increasing sentiment among Americans that the government owes the middle class and that the rich owe the poor. He decries a country where “we have leaders whose belief [sic] go against the American way.” It would seem that only a return to conservative ideals can right this ship and return America to a country that works hard for success instead of whining about its lot.

Too bad the Conservatives have missed the point.

It is true that many people do not like Romney because he is rich. However, that position is usually followed by the sentiment that “he can’t relate to the middle class.” And really, how could he? This is a man who sold stock to pay for college, while the average student has to take out massive loans and/or work side jobs. Certainly, Barack Obama is doing quite well for himself as well, with an estimated net worth of up to $11.8 million, but at the least, his platform and policies seem to indicate his willingness to fight for more than the 1%.

The key thing to remember is that the “class warfare” that has been going on isn’t really between the individuals who are rich or poor—they are merely the pawns. The war is really over a system that has consistently widened the gap between the “haves” and “have-nots” of America. As user Agit8r astutely points out (in response to Mitchell), even our founding fathers recognized the need to correct for class disparity. Thomas Jefferson notes, “Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise,” and yet the current state of affairs is such that Warren Buffet, the 3rd richest man in the world at the time of this writing, pays a lower percentage tax than his secretary. The biggest offender here is the capital gains tax, for which the top rate is only 15%, while income tax tops out at 35% for the highest bracket. Let’s not just look at one isolated case, however. Here’s some data directly from the IRS. Note Table 3, which shows the effective tax rates for taxpayers with the top 400 adjusted gross incomes. In 2008, the median rate fell somewhere between 15-20%. Furthermore, the rate has fallen over time: in 1992, the median was between 25-30%. The phrase “the first million is the hardest” has never been truer, since it takes money to make money in this world, and if you’ve got it, the system is set up to let you hoard an unfair amount of it.

There are plenty of reasons people have come up with to defend the current capital gains tax rate. One of the most prominent is that it amounts to double-taxing income: once when the company is taxed on its gains, and again when the shareholder is taxed on his/her dividends. Another point that comes to mind is that raising capital gains tax may discourage investment in the stock market, an important component of driving the economy.

Take a look at this report by Leonard E. Burman presented to the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance. Figure 4 (reproduced below) shows that capital gains tax rates and GDP change aren’t really linked at all. In case you don’t trust your eyes, the report points out: “the correlation is 0.12, the opposite sign from what capital gains tax cut advocates would expect, and not statistically different from zero.” Thus, it seems fair to conclude that any concerns about the capital gains tax affecting the economy are overblown. But what about double-taxation? Well, while Republicans may point out that corporate tax rates are as high as 35%, the truth is that most companies do not pay this full rate. In his 2011 report, Robert S. McIntyre discovered ”that a quarter of the companies in our study paid effective federal tax rates on their U.S. profits of less than 10 percent” and only “an almost equal number of our companies paid close to the full 35 percent.” This seems inherently unfair. At the very least, corporations and investors should both bear an equal brunt of the tax burden, without loopholes for escaping it. I’m not the first one to suggest this; in 2010, Altshuler, Harris, and Toder suggested “taxing capital gains and dividends as ordinary income (subject to a maximum 28% rate on long-term capital gains) would finance a cut in the corporate tax rate from 35% to about 26%.”

Finally, let us return to the Burman report and note that capital gains are a source of income practically reserved for the rich. Figure 1 (reproduced below) breaks down the distribution of capital gains by income quintile. Over 90% of the gains belonged to the top 20% of earners, and roughly 50% to the top 0.1%. The game of investments has become like a high-stakes poker table; the average American simply cannot afford a seat.
The real travesty here is that the GOP has somehow convinced its supporters in the middle class that maintaining this system is somehow in their best interests. They’ve bought into the notion that the rich and super-rich should remain that way so that they can offer jobs and trickle down their success. Unfortunately, trickle-down economics just don’t work. Feel free to offer a counterpoint in the comments, I’ll be waiting.

At the end of the day, we do not begrudge Mitt Romney his wealth. After all, the American dream is to build success, and the Romney family wealth has certainly come from a significant amount of effort. The problem we have is that Governor Romney’s policies and approach to the American economy will continue the great advantages that the rich and super-rich have over the rest of America. If America is to be a fair and balanced country where the American Dream is still a possibility, this inequality must be rectified.