Hank Kalet, Basil Rouskas to kick off fall poetry series

The South Brunswick poetry series will kick off its fall season on Sunday, Sept. 16, with Basil Rouskas and Hank Kalet.

Date/Time: Sunday, Sept. 16, at 2 p.m.

Location: South Brunswick Public Library, 110 Kingston Lane, Monmouth Junction

Open reading to follow featured poets.

Bios:

Basil Rouskas has been writing poetry for over 30 years. His first poetry lines in the Greek language were protests against the military Junta who took over Greece and ruled it until the mid 70’s. He translated literature and theatre during his first years in the US and gradually his poetry became bilingual. He currently writes mainly in English. His first chapbook, Redrawing Borders, was published in 2010 by Finishing Line Press and drew favorable reviews in the Journal of Hellenic Diaspora in 2012. Basil’s poetry has been featured in many poetry venues, including the New York Times, Princeton Public Library Podcast, Helix Magazine, Shot Glass Journal, and TIFERET, A Journal of Spiritual Literature. http://www.nov-aspire.com

Hank Kalet is a freelance writer and political columnist whose poetry and prose has appeared in The Aquarian Weekly, The Progressive Populist, City Belt, The Journal of New Jersey Poets, Big Scream, Big Smile, The Writer’s Gallery and numerous other journals. His chapbook, Certainties and Uncertainties, was published in 2010 by Finishing Line Press. He teaches writing at Middlesex County College.

Ryan’s radical plan

Paul Ryan’s presence on the Republican ticket confirms what we already knew: A Mitt Romney presidency would gut what remains of the social safety net.

The evidence is in the budget Ryan twice proposed and that the House of Representatives has endorsed. It would slash taxes for the wealthy while shredding programs for the poor and shifting the tax burden to the middle class. It not only leaves in place the corporate-military alliance, it would expand it drastically, while both Ryan and Romney would remove the limited roadblocks put in place by the Obama administration to control the banks. It is a truly radical plan. As Michael Hiltzik put it in the LA Times: “the middle class would be destroyed.”

Ryan advocates cutting the top income tax rate to 25% (from 39.6%, the pre-Bush top marginal rate scheduled to take effect Jan. 1).

The only way to do so while keeping overall tax revenues at 19% of gross domestic product, Ryan’s stated goal, is to eliminate a wide range of tax breaks. On the surface, this might look palatable to a middle-class taxpayer convinced that the fat cats get all the breaks anyway. In fact, the most popular breaks save billions for the middle class.

More than 70% of the mortgage interest payments claimed as deductions ($240 billion) appear on returns filed by people in the income range of $60,000 to $200,000, according to the IRS. Many of these middle-class homeowners base their annual financial planning on tax breaks such as the mortgage deduction. Only about 1.4% of the total is claimed by taxpayers earning $1 million or more.

Ouch. On the other side of the ledger — expenditures — the Ryan plan would do a lot worse:

Ryan would replace the existing Medicare system of guaranteed treatment (with a nominal individual premium) with one providing vouchers for service through private commercial insurance plans. By design, the vouchers wouldn’t cover all costs, and because their value would rise in accordance with a standard inflation measure, not with medical inflation, the gap would widen over time.

The Kaiser Family Foundation calculated that in 2022, the out-of-pocket medical expenses of the typical 65-year-old would come to half his or her Social Security income — double the level under traditional Medicare. There are two reasons. First, private insurers would deliver benefits at a higher administrative cost, and second, the vouchers would low-ball the retirees’ real costs.

As a device to reduce the growth in healthcare costs, which is the principal component in government spending going forward, this is pure sleight of hand. Costs will keep rising, and at a faster rate than before (Ryan would also repeal the healthcare reform act, including its cost-reducing provisions). Less of the increase would show up on the government’s ledgers only because more would show up in family budgets. The average American would be poorer for it.

Why? The “economic status” of Medicare beneficiaries

tracks that of America’s elderly as a whole (as it should, as the program is open to almost all Americans over 65). Some 60% get sizable portions of their income from private pensions, more than a third get at least 10% from investment income. On average they get 39% of their income from Social Security.

What happens if medical costs start taking up half their Social Security? Much of the burden might shift to their children and grandchildren. Keeping in mind that Social Security and Medicare always have aimed to remove this burden from the next generation, that’s a real leap backward.

And what of Medicaid — which pays for health care for the poor, but is paid for jointly by the federal and state governments. Cutting federal funding for Medicaid will result in two things, both of which will hurt the poor and middle class. The poor will have less comprehensive care and state budgets will be squeezed to the point of bursting, creating a “tsunami of pain for the middle class,” Hiltzik says.

Ryan would push more of the expense of Medicaid onto the states. Repealing the Affordable Care Act would remove funding for a Medicaid expansion that would have covered 17 million people. It would also replace the current open-ended federal subsidy to states with block grants keyed to population growth and standard inflation. In other words, completely unconnected to the real drivers of healthcare costs, which are the aging of the population and medical inflation.

States will be able to relieve the resulting pressure on their budgets only by cutting Medicaid enrollments, providing enrollees with fewer services, raising taxes or covering the shortfall out of budgets straining to keep up with road repair, K-12 education and public safety.

The Ryan budget won’t do much to help states with those other items; his insistence on reducing non-defense federal spending outside the health programs and Social Security by more than one-fifth starting in 2014 implies unprecedented cuts for state and local governments, which today get one-third of those dollars. That’s money spent today on education, law enforcement, roads, clean air and water programs, and disaster response.

When payment for those services is demanded at the point of sale, as in a post-Ryan world, it’s the middle class that will pay. They’ve reached into their pockets to pay for school arts and enrichment programs lopped out of state budgets and carried the burden of tuition hikes at state universities. Teachers of middle- class students — stalwart members of the middle class themselves — will lose their jobs by the thousands. Under Ryan’s budget, they’ll pay higher federal taxes for the privilege.

This is a brutal vision for America and one unlikely to return the nation to prosperity, which is the argument that Ryan makes in its behalf. That’s one of the points that Ronald Reagan’s former budget director makes in an op-ed today. David Stockman, by no means a liberal, calls the Ryan plan “the same empty conservative sermon” and adds that Ryan’s “sonorous campaign rhetoric about shrinking Big Government and giving tax cuts to ‘job creators’ (read: the top 2 percent) will do nothing to reverse the nation’s economic decline and arrest its fiscal collapse.”
Instead, it will leave the poor and middle class to deal with the economic and fiscal meltdown to come.
  • Send me an e-mail.
  • Read poetry at The Subterranean.
  • Certainties and Uncertainties a chapbook by Hank Kalet, will be published in November by Finishing Line Press. It can be ordered here.
  • Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Court rules for students of immigrants

Anyone who graduates from a New Jersey high school should be eligible for in-state tuition and aide, regardless of their, or their parents’, immigration status.

The state has a different view, which was countered in part today — by an appellate court.

In today’s ruling, as reported by NJ.com, the American-born daughter of undocumented parents is entitled to “financial assistance for tuition at a state college” as a state resident and her parents’ immigration status is irrelevant.

The three appellate judges found that after years of adhering to laws governing tuition aid grants, the state authority in 2005 inappropriately began linking students’ residency to their parents’ immigration status.

“In 2005, the agency reversed course without any substantive explanation — instead, inaccurately representing that this significant change was merely a clarification,” Judge Mitchell Ostrer wrote in the 19-page decision on behalf of the three-member panel, which included Judges Francine Axelrad and Paulette Sapp-Peterson.

The case involved a student who was denied aide last year, despite being American-born and a New Jersey resident for 14 years.

The state, through the Higher Education Student Assistance Authority, said she did not meet residency requirements (students are eligible if they live in New Jersey for a year) and that the aide goes to the parents — in this case, a single, undocumented woman from Guatemala.

The court, rightly, disagreed. It said that

regardless of the immigration status of A.Z.’s mother, her daughter had been a resident of New Jersey well beyond the 12-month requirement. In addition, the judges said the tuition aid grants, although based on the income of the parents, belong to the child.

In this case, the student was born in New York, which allowed the court to do the right thing. But there are many who came here in infancy and early childhood who know nothing but the United States as home that can’t be helped by the ruling. That is going to take legislation — both state and federal — to fix.

In the short term, however, this will make it easier for the hundreds in A.Z.’s position to go to school.

An unhealthy health-care system

From Reuters:

Americans spend twice as much as residents of other developed countries on healthcare, but get lower quality, less efficiency and have the least equitable system, according to a report released on Wednesday.

The United States ranked last when compared to six other countries — Britain, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand, the Commonwealth Fund report found.

The annual report has ranked the U.S. at or near the bottom for years. The new report is available here. It found that, in 2007, two years before the passage of the Affordable Care Act,

health spending was $7,290 per person in the United States, more than double that of any other country in the survey.

Australians spent $3,357, Canadians $3,895, Germans $3,588, the Netherlands $3,837 and Britons spent $2,992 per capita on health in 2007. New Zealand spent the least at $2,454.

This is a big rise from the Fund’s last similar survey, in 2007, which found Americans spent $6,697 per capita on healthcare in 2005, or 16 percent of gross domestic product.

“We rank last on safety and do poorly on several dimensions of quality,” Schoen told reporters. “We do particularly poorly on going without care because of cost. And we also do surprisingly poorly on access to primary care and after-hours care.
Great Britain ranked first in quality of care, while the Netherlands ranked no. 1 overall. both have been derided by critics of reform.

Will so-called Obamacare fix these deficiencies in the U.S.? Probably not. They mitigate them some.

Our only hope is to look to Europe and Canada, admit they do it a lot better and create a Medicare-for-all system.

  • Send me an e-mail.
  • Read poetry at The Subterranean.
  • Certainties and Uncertainties a chapbook by Hank Kalet, will be published in November by Finishing Line Press. It can be ordered here.
  • Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Abridging the right to protest

The Westboro Baptist Church likes to make a spectacle of itself, picketing military funerals to draw attention to its retrograde views on homosexuality.

But new restrictions on protest signed into law by President Barack Obama yesterday are not the answer to marginalizing these people.

The new law, “Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012,” provides “a wide-ranging package of benefits to military personnel and enacting new restrictions on protests of service member funerals.” According to The Huffington Post

Under the new legislation, protests must be held at least 300 feet from military funerals and are prohibited two hours before or after a service. The law counters a 2011 Supreme Court ruling, which found that displays such as Westboro’s were protected under the First Amendment.

So, while the intent seems benign, the means used have dangerous implications for other protesters in other situations. The right way to push back against the Westboro church and other hate groups is to engage in counter demonstrations like two that

drew national attention last month, when large groups of people turned out in both Missouri and in Texas in an attempt to create “human walls” to shield attendees of military funerals from Westboro’s demonstrations.

The best way to combat noxious speech, as we know, is with more speech.

  • Send me an e-mail.
  • Read poetry at The Subterranean. 
  • Certainties and Uncertainties a chapbook by Hank Kalet, will be published in November by Finishing Line Press. It can be ordered here.  
  • Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.