The Effect of the Tax Code on Marriage

Flickr image by Orin Blomberg.

Marriage and family stability should be encouraged so that children may have the opportunity for a better future. However, the effects of the tax code penalizes marriage. Low-income workers, being more likely to be subject to the marriage tax penalty than middle or high income workers, could be driven to not get married at all or divorce due to more unwanted financial stress (Fichtner and Feldman).

Why would a household with two people each earning the same amount of income (ex. $50,000 annual income per individual) be taxed more than a household with two people each earning different incomes (but still earning a total of $100,000 annually)? Government, it seems, threw being “fair” and promoting “equality” out the window when instituting the tax code. Jason Fichtner, a senior research fellow and Jason Feldman, a research analyst, both under the Mercatus Center, calculated that “For many middle-class families, the tax brackets for married couples filing jointly for any given tax rate is roughly twice the amount as a non-married worker, thereby subjecting more income to a lower tax rate.” While a single-earner household earning $60,000 a year could take home a $3,465 “marriage bonus”, a two-earner household, each person earning $30,000 a year, could be subject to a penalty of $1,083 (Fichtner and Feldman).

To encourage women to stay in the labor force after having children, Obama has two proposals: adding a new tax credit for second earners and tripling the existing tax credit for child care expenses. There are two reasons that the proposal of adjustments to the tax code is “justified” by lawmakers. The first is that because two-earner households would naturally incur higher living costs vs. single-earner households with the same income, two-earner households should be taxed more. But since single-earner households earn less, and because the labor would be divided inefficiently, the first justification doesn’t make sense. The second reason is to keep the tax code progressive, and when applied to families, penalizes marriage which also doesn’t make sense (Ponnuru).

So the tax code, adjusted or left alone, is discouraging marriage. Politicians, wanting to keep women in the labor force and coming up with policies for that purpose, would still and are at present discouraging them from working, and marrying for that matter (Ponnuru).

As with other government policies, the tax code, by penalizing marriage, hits low-income people hard in addition to penalizing high-income people (Fichtner and Feldman). Households with two adults and no dependents are very likely to incur the marriage penalty if annual income is fairly equal or very equal and between $10,000 and $20,000 or between $350,000 and $1,000,000 – obviously burdening the poor as well as well as taxing the rich more while the middle class will likely receive a marriage bonus (Kasprak).


If households are made up of two adults and one dependent and incomes are relatively equal or close to equal, households with an annual income between $30,000 and $60,000 are fined heavily for being married, especially at around $40,000 a year, in addition to households with an annual income between $500,000 and $1,000,000. Once again, hitting the low-income people hard and subjecting the high-income people to more taxes (Kasprak).


And oddly enough, if households with two earners with fairly the same incomes or close to the same incomes have two dependents and earn between $15,000 and $70,000 a year, are penalized heaviest among people having no dependents, one dependent, and two dependents. People earning between $500,000 and $1,000,000 are likely to incur a marriage penalty as well if the earners have fairly the same incomes or close to the same incomes (Kasprak).


To summarize, Richard Morrison of the Tax Foundation explains what is going on: “Marriage penalties tend to affect low income and high income couples, but not middle income ones—low income couples because of the marriage penalty inherent in the structure of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and high income couples because the 28 percent rate bracket and above for joint filers begins at less than twice the amount for single filers. Middle income couples are much more likely to receive a marriage bonus simply because there is no penalty inherent in the bracket structure for the 25 percent rate levels and below—for joint filers, each bracket begins at exactly twice that for single filers” (Morrison).

Staying true to its design, the marriage tax discourages work. A stay-at-home member of a family receiving a bonus is discouraged from returning to work because joint-filing says that for the stay-at-home family member to return to work, he or she must be subject to the tax rate of the other head earner’s next marginal dollar of income – for example, if the other head earner’s income was $60,000 – the rate would be 25%, instead of the single filing rate of 10%. “Although married individuals have the option of filing separate tax returns, filing under the tax status ‘married filing separately’ imposes limits on tax deductions, narrower tax brackets, and higher marginal tax rates” (Fichtner and Feldman).

Two-worker families with relatively the same incomes have the choice of earning less income and being married, or being married and earning less income, but probably providing a more stable home for children (Fichtner and Feldman).


Mainly, the low-income people are ironically, hit the hardest by the marriage penalty, even though the rich people are subject to the marriage penalty as well (Morrison). Importantly, if people are concerned about reducing poverty and helping low-income people and encouraging family stability, they should be concerned about the tax code. Discouraging work by taxing income and stability by a gap between who is taxed depending on if you’re married and have fairly similar or very similar annual incomes and how many dependents you have is a burden that will not help low-income families out of poverty. The solution, not to poverty, but to alleviate the tax burden, is to allow families the choice of filing taxes as single or married – without penalties – tax status should remain neutral regarding marital status. This allows the opportunity for more people to flourish and from there, allow their children to flourish (Fichtner and Feldman).




Fichtner, Jason and Jacob Feldman. "Eliminate the Marriage Tax Penalty." US News 18 September 2012: 1. web. 4 March 2015.
Kasprak, Nick. "Marriage Penalties and Bonuses (Families with Children Edition)." Tax Foundation 29 August 2013: 1. web. 4 March 2015.
Morrison, Richard. "Tax Code's Marriage Penalty Varies Greatly with Income." Tax Foundation 10 January 2013: 1. web. 4 March 2015.
Ponnuru, Ramesh. "Obama's War on Homemakers." American Enterprise Institute 22 January 2015: 1. web. 3 March 2015.

Technology Creates Opportunity for Better Employment – Not Mass Unemployment

Many people are worried today that technology is taking away jobs. Concerns over robots replacing cashiers, pharmacists, automobile drivers, telemarketers, sewers, data entry keyers, document-reviewing software replacing lawyers, and more are not unfounded. Either computers/computer software is already replacing humans in these occupations, or they will be extremely likely to do so (Aquino; Thompson). People who look at the long-run effects, however, instead of short-run, will see that technology does not negatively affect employment in the long-term and improves our lives (McElroy; Bessen).

The type of unemployment that may be or will be experienced by workers due to technology advancements is structural – meaning that unemployment will likely be temporary as other job opportunities in other fields arise, sometimes from the technology advancements themselves. This is further legitimized by the fact that although we are experiencing more technology in fields replacing the role of human labor in bookkeeping, sales, and banking, we have three-quarters of a million more people occupying positions in those areas from 1999 to 2009 regardless of the tough economic times that the recession brought, according to the Occupational Employment Survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Bessen).

Interestingly, some people say that banking has been negatively impacted; but in reality, it has been more positively impacted by technology (Bessen). “Because ATMs perform many teller transactions, fewer tellers are needed to operate a bank branch. But because it costs less to operate a branch office, banks dramatically increased the number of branches in order to reach a bigger market. More bank branches means more tellers, despite fewer tellers per branch” (Bessen). In addition, relationship banking is still alive contrary to what some believe, because though tellers do not complete as many simple transactions as they once did, they are now completing the more complex tasks that can still make the customer’s experience personal (Bessen).

Though new technology in the textile weaving industry is an example of a dramatic decrease in labor – 98 percent – in the long-run people were made better-off. It does seems like mechanization brought hard times for the people working in the industry due to massive unemployment, but the greater demand for cloth due to a dramatic decrease in its cost quadrupled the number of textile industry jobs (Bessen).

Economist Walter Williams says that the telecommunications industry is a marvel of a seemingly overall massive job loss that turned into advancements in the industry that did not make us worse off, but better off (Williams). “In 1970, the telecommunications industry employed 421,000 workers as switchboard operators, annually handling 9.8 billion long-distance calls. Today the telecommunications industry employs only 78,000 operators. That's a tremendous 80 percent job loss. What happened? The answer: There have been spectacular labor-saving advances in telecommunications. Today more than 100 billion long-distance calls a year require only 78,000 switchboard operators. What's more is the cost of making a long-distance call is a tiny fraction of what it was in 1970” (Williams).

Technology has time and again caused a painful transition for workers having to find jobs in other fields. Yes, we have had and do have an unemployment problem in the US, but that problem does not stem from technology (McElroy; Williams; Bessen). “Forbes pointed out that U.S. unemployment rates have changed little over the past 120 years (1890 to 2014) despite massive advances in workplace technology” (McElroy). Even though unemployment increased dramatically during the economic downturns such as the recent Great Recession and the past Great Depression and Panic of 1893 – those were problems caused not by increases in use of new technologies, but by financiers. It was through innovation by entrepreneurs and business that brought employment back up (McElroy).

Flickr image by Scott McLeod.

Structural unemployment exists because of technology, but this creative destruction allocates human labor to its best uses – those occupations that require the special human skills of creation, caregiving, problem-solving, and communication. The market’s power of “the invisible hand” will weed out the jobs no longer yielding more than the cost of the human labor to produce the goods or provide the services. However, attempts by government to stop creative destruction and prevent competition, such as the presence of monopolies and patents hurt our economy in the long-run, contrary to the positive effects of technology. By trying to stabilize employment by way of cronyism, the government hurts consumers by allowing companies the ability to raise prices artificially, and creates stasis by impoverishing employees (McElroy).

Though it is true that some human labor has been eliminated because of technology, new jobs have been created that are more valuable to our society than some jobs in the past (McElroy; Williams). Would it be economically beneficial today to employ such people as the milkman and the iceman who delivered to homes in the past, over going to the grocery store or using the ice-maker in a refrigerator? Taking into account wages and compensation in today’s prices, it makes economic sense that technology saves consumers money and has made life easier (McElroy; Williams). Creative destruction of technology has caused some structural unemployment, but the transition from the widespread use of ships and trains to cars and airplanes made unemployment shift, but not increase. In the long-run, the number of jobs in more valuable industries than past ones has brought innovation that has enriched everyone’s lives (McElroy; Williams; Bessen).

Without technology, there is a loss of innovation and progress that would decline our nation’s standard of living. People will lose opportunities to gain new skillsets and change their careers to fields that yield a greater amount of success (McElroy; Williams; Bessen). The need for new skills might even be the reason for stagnant wages (Bessen). Hindering technology would be hurting productivity and furthermore employment in new and/or better fields (McElroy; Williams; Bessen).



Aquino, Judith. "Nine Jobs that Humans May Lose to Robots." NBC News 2012. web. 20 February 2015.
Bessen, James. "Don't Blame Technology for Persistent Unemployment." Slate 30 September 2013: 1. web. 20 February 2015.
McElroy, Wendy. "#45 – Robots and Computerization Cause Unemployment." The Freeman 20 February 2015: 1. web. 20 February 2015.
Thompson, Derek. "What Jobs Will the Robots Take?" The Atlantic 23 January 2014: 1. web. 20 February 2015.
Williams, Walter E. "Job Destruction Makes Us Richer." Townhall 27 July 2011: 1. web. 20 February 2015.

The Rich Already Give Back Enough

Successful business people in America are “under the gun” by TV shows, movies, academia, and the media more than business people have ever been in the past, even under such “propaganda machines” as China’s Red Guards under Mao Zedong, Germany’s National Socialists under Hitler, and Cuba’s Committee for Defense of the Revolution under the Castro brothers (Robinson). It’s not surprising then, that the majority of US public opinion is that income inequality is a big problem (Weldon). “In a 2014 Pew poll, a large majority saw the current gap between rich and poor as a moderately or very big problem (78 percent). A smaller majority (57 percent) in a 2011 Gallup poll said that the distribution of wealth in the country is unfair. Furthermore, most think the problem is getting worse. A solid 69 percent majority in a CBS News poll in January thought that the gap between rich and poor is getting larger” (Weldon). 

Flickr image by Chris Potter.

The popular idea to fix the “income gap” between the rich and poor in America, is instituting higher taxes on the wealthy (Weldon). It then seems that President Obama’s policies would please the American public: “The top 1% are now paying an average tax rate that's 6 percentage points higher than when Obama first took office … to an estimated 33.8% today, according to the Tax Policy Center” (Sahadi). The taxes that would hit the rich the hardest is the higher top income tax rate of 20% up from 15% and the higher capital gains and dividends tax rate of 24.2%. In addition, taxpayers subject to the 3.8% Medicare surtax would add that tax to the other above-mentioned taxes for a 28% top rate on some of their investment income (Sahadi). 

A part of Obama’s justification for more taxes on the rich is that rich people have an unfair advantage over the middle class and poor of America – and therefore, should be taxed more (Miron). Since Warren Buffet was taxed less than his secretary, it seems that he is not paying enough taxes; but in reality, it is hard to define someone’s income like Buffet’s and from there find the taxation rate. Though Buffet pays himself a low salary, he obtains most of his income through his capital gains earned through speculation. Capital gains are taxed at 15%, while his secretary pays a top tax rate of over 30% (“The Tax-the-Rich Truth Squad”). “The reason the capital-gains rate is so low is that those gains are taxed first at the corporate level — at  35 percent — before being taxed again as Buffett’s income at 15 percent.  In addition, it’s not clear what Buffett included in his secretary’s taxes and income” (“The Tax-the-Rich Truth Squad”). 

In reality, rich people like Warren Buffet are being taxed not only more than what politicians claim, but also more than their “fair share” (“The Tax-the-Rich Truth Squad”). A 2008 Tax Foundation report found that “The top 1 percent earned 20 percent of all income but paid 38 percent of all total income tax receipts.  The top 10 percent earned 46 percent of all income and paid 70 percent of total taxes” (“The Tax-the-Rich Truth Squad”). To prove that a millionaire like Buffet is overtaxed, Steven Horwitz, an economist at St. Lawrence University, calculated Buffet’s total tax receipts corresponding to his income’s percentage of total taxes paid (in the US). So, he concluded that “[The millionaire’s] income was about 0.00065 percent of total income. Total income taxes paid by Americans in 2010 was about $900 billion. Nine-hundred billion multiplied by 0.00065 percent is $5.85 million, hence, Buffett’s ‘fair share.’ Except Buffet paid $6.9 million.  So by that standard, Warren Buffett is overtaxed!” (“The Tax-the-Rich Truth Squad”).

Higher taxes are supposed to alleviate the burden of the middle class and poor families of America (Sahadi). The problem is that taxing the rich cannot solve income inequality, nor can it help (“The Tax-the-Rich Truth Squad”). A New Models Poll from 2008 found that 66% of the country believes that increasing taxes on the rich would not hurt the economy, while 32% said they believed it would (Weldon). However, taxing the rich hurts the middle class and poor in addition to not helping the economy (Stossel; “The Tax-the-Rich Truth Squad”). 

Rich people in a free market society usually do not become rich through dishonest tactics, but rather through the use of their human capital – ideas that revolutionize to new technologies that result in better lives for us all. Wealthy entrepreneurs, businessmen, and other such people have provided far more than the lower classes have given them (“Giving Back”).

The perception that rich people should give back just because they have plenty is absurd. Why should someone who worked for his or her wealth be forced to redistribute what is rightfully theirs to people who have no right to the wealth? “The only reason one would ‘give back’ is that one has ‘taken’ something inappropriately from others. The ‘back’ in ‘give back’ assumes that the thing in question rightfully belongs to someone else” (“Giving Back”). 

When taxes are raised on the rich, they will go lengths to minimize the effects of those taxes (Stossel). Art Laffer, a famous economist, explains: “It's just economics. People don't work to pay taxes. People work to get what they can after tax. They'll change where they earn their income. They'll change how they earn their income. They'll change how much they earn, when they receive the income. They'll change all of those things to minimize taxes” (Stossel). Statistics show that federal revenues have rarely fallen to 17% or increased to over 20% ever since the 1960s, suggesting that the rich are adjusting to their tax burden, so increasing their taxes actually may not help others (Stossel). 

So do Americans really want a country that discourages wealth creation? Because, according to John Stossel of the Fox Business Network, taxing the rich does exactly that (Stossel). “Donald Trump, who knows something about making money, says of course the rich will leave when hit with higher taxes. ‘I know these people. They're international people. Whether they live here or live in a place like Switzerland doesn't really matter to them’” (Stossel). Discouragement of wealth creation seems to imply America’s loss of some wealthy entrepreneurs and businessmen due to tax hikes would hurt productivity, technology, and innovation – in addition to the number of job opportunities in “big-money” industries (Stossel; “Giving Back”; “The Tax-the-Rich Truth Squad”).

Prior evidence strongly suggests that our government should not hinder rich people from creating wealth and opportunities for us to flourish. Therefore, the portion of the American public who is jealous of the wealthy, and wants to redistribute their wealth with taxes seem statistically proven to be quite mistaken in their thinking. “Expecting more from the rich is nothing but class envy, a call for punishment of the successful” (“Giving Back”).

Horwitz, Steven. "Giving Back." The Freeman 11 August 2011: 1. web. 7 February 2015.
—. "The Tax-the-Rich Truth Squad." The Freeman 22 September 2011: 1. web. 7 February 2015.
Miron, Jeffrey A. "The Tax Code Should Not Redistribute Wealth." The New York Times 4 February 2015: 1. web. 7 February 2015.
Robinson, Ron. "#43 – Income Inequality Is the Great Economic and Moral Crisis of Our Time." The Freeman 6 February 2015: 1. web. 7 February 2015.
Sahadi, Jeanne. "Taxing the Rich: The Record under Obama." CNN Money 30 January 2015: 1. web. 7 February 2015.
Stossel, John. "Taxing the Rich." Townhall 29 September 2010: 1. web. 7 February 2015.
Weldon, Kathleen. "If I Were a Rich Man: Public Attitudes About Wealth and Taxes." Huffington Post 4 February 2015: 1. web. 7 February 2015.

More Women are Supporting the Use of Guns for Protection

Many women are sensitive to the gun control topic – as a higher percentage of women than men are advocates for more gun control. In December 2014, according to the Pew Research Center, only 51% of women said owning a gun protects people from crime, compared to the 63% of men who said so. According to Pew, since 2012 there has been an 11% increase in the number of women who said owning a gun protects people (Chappell). So more women are now changing their minds about guns, as they need to for their safety and for the safety of their families.

Flickr image by Klaudyna

Amanda Collins was raped in 2007 on the University of Reno-Nevada campus by James Biela, a serial rapist who had raped two women and killed another. Collins, though she had a concealed carry permit, was attacked at gunpoint but had no gun on her at the time due to her compliance with university policy prohibiting concealed weapons on campus (Pavlich).

During a Colorado hearing on laws that would prohibit concealed carry on college campuses, Collins said, “If I had been carrying that night, two other rapes would have been prevented and a young life would have been saved. All of these [gun prohibition laws] are just sentiments that give a false sense of security. In my experience I know that the university that I attended, the University of Nevada-Reno, they didn't have any call boxes the night I was attacked. They afterwards installed them but I can tell you that a call box above my head while I was straddled on the parking garage floor being brutally raped wouldn't have helped me one bit. The safe zone? I was in a safe zone and my attacker didn't care” (Pavlich). Amanda Collins also declared that a rape whistle, which was suggested to be the solution to prevent rape by Representative Joe Salazar, would not have helped in her isolated situation (Pavlich).

In 2003, Kaye Booth, a writer for The Freeman, and her husband were both attacked while on mountain trails. A man approached with a rock and struggled with her husband. The author then felt the need to pull out her 9mm and fire at the attacker, who thereafter fled. “If my six-foot 220-pound husband couldn’t fend off the man, how effective would a 130-pound woman blowing a rape whistle have been in a similar circumstance?” (Booth). After this incident, the author felt that the gun protected her and her husband from death (Booth).

Martha Lewis, another woman who felt the need to use a gun because of a threatening situation, had her home broken into in 2012 early one morning. She told her two daughters to go into a bedroom and arm themselves with weapons to protect themselves. They were all at the top of the stairs when they saw a man standing at the bottom. He then began approaching them and asked if Lewis was going to shoot him, to which she replied that she would if she had to. Because the man kept coming, she made good on her promise of shooting him. The intruder stumbled outside and remained there until the police arrived to find him. After the incident, Lewis said to reporters: “There’s so much talk about banning guns and gun control but they’re for protection,” she said. “There’s no way that I could have fought him off” (Morgenstern).

In all of these scenarios women were threatened in dangerous and life-threatening

situations. In Collins’ case, she followed the law and paid a price for it. There is a very strong feeling by many that people should not have to choose between protection and following the law. Simply put: gun control laws put people’s lives at risk (Pavlich; Booth). Women especially should be concerned about gun control laws because guns are a method of easy and quick defense in the case of a threatening situation. Their natural right to self-preservation and to protect their families should not be tampered with, but rather respected.

Though females are less victimized than males: 15.8 vs. 18.4 per 1,000, overwhelmingly more women are raped compared to men (Crime in America.Net). In 2011, the rate of forcible rapes was estimated at 52.7 per 100,000 female inhabitants (Forcible Rape). The number of unreported rapes is in actuality drastically higher: according to statistics from 2008 to 2012 by Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey, the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network estimated only 40 percent of rapes get reported to the police (Lee).

More and more women are seeing the need to protect themselves than ever before (Chappell). Collins, Booth, and Lewis, are three women whose lives were threatened and, except in Collins’ case, defended themselves with a firearm. Both Booth and Lewis recognized how vulnerable they really would have been had they not been in possession of a gun and known how to use it properly (Booth; Morgenstern). Had Collins been in possession of her firearm, she wouldn’t have felt vulnerable while being on campus and it is probable that she wouldn’t have been raped (Pavlich). Increasing numbers of women, being concerned about their own vulnerability of being a victim and of their loved ones of being victims, are exercising their right to keep and bear arms. That right should be respected in order to decrease the chances of people being victimized.

The number of criminals who used a firearm or weapon to commit a rape, aggravated assault, or burglary is actually quite unsubstantial. According to the Bureau of Justice, from 2005-2010, a weapon was used in only 11% of rapes (Female Victims). As of 2011, a firearm was used in 21% of aggravated assaults compared to cutting instruments 19.1%, and other weapons 32.8% (Aggravated Assault). Between 2003 and 2007, only in 12% of violent household burglaries did the burglar use a firearm, while 61% of all burglars did not use one (Victimization During Household Burglaries). This data suggests that women could have the upper hand in attempted rapes, aggravated assaults, and burglaries by having a weapon on their person, due to the fact that the criminals in those cases are usually not armed with a quick and easily accessible weapon such as a firearm.

Although data suggests that more and more women are realizing the usefulness of a firearm, there are still plenty who don’t (Chappell). If more pro-gun control women heard stories like that of Collins, Booth, and Lewis, and realized the significance of data of the specific types of crime, perhaps they would feel differently about the use and restrictions of guns.

Booth, Kaye. "Armed Women, Empowered Women." The Freeman 21 May 2013: 1. web. 25 January 2015. 
Bureau of Justice Statistics. "Female Victims of Sexual Violence, 1994-2010." 2013. web. 30 January 2015.
—. "Victimization During Household Burglary." 2010. web. 30 January 2015.
Chappell, Bill. "Gun Rights Outweigh Gun Control in New Pew Survey." The Two Way 10 December 2014: 1. web. 25 January 2015.
Crime in America.Net. "What Are My Chances of Being a Victim of Violent Crime?" Crime in America.Net 13 December 2010: 1. web. 25 January 2015.
FBI. "Aggravated Assault." 2011. web. 30 January 2015.
—. "Forcible Rape." 2011. web. 28 January 2015.
Lee, Michelle Ye Hee. "The Truth About a Viral Graphic on Rape Statistics." Washington Post 9 December 2014: 1. web. 30 January 2015.
Morgenstern, Madeleine. "Alabama Woman Shoots Home Intruder to Protect Herself and Her Ax- and Knife-Wielding Daughters." The Blaze 17 August 2012: 1. web. 28 January 2015.
Pavlich, Katie. "Colorado Democrat Lectures Rape Survivor Amanda Collins About Rape "Statistics"." Townhall 5 March 2013: 1. web. 28 January 2015.

"Income inequality may actually be good news": Op-ed authored by Daniel J. Smith and Rachel Freeman

http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/02/income_inequality_may_actually.html#incart_river

The Failure of the IHS

Flickr image by Chiot's Run.

Socialized healthcare for Native Americans is an example of socialism’s failure; whereas, the alternative of healthcare privatization leads to better health and less waste of tax dollars. The government bureaucracy that provides socialized healthcare for Native Americans is the IHS (Indian Health Services). For decades, it has been providing healthcare that is mediocre or worse and has been wasting our tax dollars (Hollis).

Actually, this socialized healthcare has led to a deterioration in the health of Native Americans. 2007 infant mortality rates among Native Americans in the US were 1.4 times higher than non-hispanic whites, heart disease rates were 1.2 time higher, HIV/AIDS rates were 30% higher, liver cancer and inflammatory bowel disease were 2 times higher, diabetes-related death rates were 4 times higher, and life expectancy on average was 4 years shorter for Native Americans than the population as a whole (“Native Americans”). In 2010, life expectancy for Native Americans throughout the US was 76.9 years, compared to 86.5 years for Asians, 82.8 years for Latinos, and 78.9 for whites, while African Americans had a worse life expectancy than Native Americans with 74.6. Further, 2010 life expectancies for just Native Americans living in Montana and South Dakota were the worst among all races in US states: 69.2 and 68.2 respectively. In other states that have substantial Native American populations, the life expectancies were the lowest among any race, except a year lower for African Americans than Native Americans who live in Oklahoma (The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation).

Similar to the IHS, the VA has similar inefficiencies and an ineffectiveness that has led to mediocre or worse healthcare for veterans. The presence of similar problems under the VA indicates that the problems under both the IHS and the VA are chronic of government-run systems; contrary to the beliefs of politicians and the media: that more accountability, funding, and more regulation can fix the ills of the bureaucracies (“Not Just the VA”). The government bureaucracy IHS is not well-known nor are its inadequacies well-known. More exposure leads to an understanding of why government-run healthcare doesn’t work but why private healthcare is the best solution to waste fewer tax dollars and have better health.

The IHS is just another government bureaucracy typical of unaccountability. In July 2008, the Government Accountability Office reported that IHS lost $15.8 million worth of equipment including: unusable Jaws of Life machines, ultrasound machines, x-ray machines, and trucks – as well as $700,000 worth of computers ruined by bat dung. (Hollis; “Not Just the VA”). With over 14,000 employees, including 8 assistant surgeon generals, 439 “Director Grade” bureaucrats, and 601 “Senior Grade” bureaucrats, it seems as if there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Really, is over 1,000 people “running” the IHS needed and worth the taxpayers’ money? (“Not Just the VA”). What the bureaucrats in charge of the IHS really do is scrimp when budgeting for the population of Native Americans, and set most of the money aside for themselves instead of for the IHS staff (“Not Just the VA”).

As of 2009, $6,000 was spent per person on healthcare across the US, while $2,100 was spent per Native American via the IHS (“Native Americans”). The common wisdom on reservations is “don’t get sick after June” because June is the month when the money that is supposed to be “budgeted” runs out (“Native Americans”; “Not Just the VA”; Hollis). In addition, “low salaries contribute to unfilled vacancies, poor retention, and low morale among staff, causing waiting lists and inferior treatment for patients. The IHS has job vacancy rates for healthcare professionals, ranging from 12 percent to 32 percent” (“Not Just the VA”). The patients should be expertly taken care of by such a planned system. However, this is not the case at all. The data points to a waste in tax dollars by the corrupt government bureaucracy.

The type of care known by Native Americans who use the IHS’s services range from misdiagnoses and improper treatments, to no care at all due to money constraints. Cataracts, cancer, gall bladder surgery, and frostbite are all crucial health problems that have been left untreated by IHS staff (Hollis).

Improper treatment suggestions include that of Jay Littlewolf, a Cheyenne staying on a reservation in Montana, who had a diabetic ulcer on his right foot – and at the time was told the solution was to simply cut off his toes. The out-of-pocket private treatments have cost Littlewolf $3,000 as of January 2014, but the total over time would reach $20,000+, an amount that the government agency did not want to pay (“Not Just the VA”).

A.T. "Rusty" Stafne, chairman of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of northeast Montana's Fort Peck Indian Reservation, said an issue experienced within their reservation is the common use of treatments such as pain killers or cough medicine when those methods do not help nor cure the real causes of the health problems (AP News).

In 2005, Ta-Shon Rain Little Light, a 5 year-old Crow Indian, was taken to an IHS clinic when she had stopped eating because her stomach was hurting. The doctors there diagnosed her pain as depression and neglected to perform tests that would have recognized terminal cancer. Several months later when she was airlifted to a hospital in Denver because her health had deteriorated drastically, cancer was discovered and would have likely been treatable had it been found earlier (“Native Americans”).

Within the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, A.T. "Rusty" Stafne said that people have died because they could not get the healthcare they needed (AP News). Dr. Dee Althouse, a physician of the Chippewa Cree Band had to focus on saving lives and limbs, while other health problems were put on the back burner (Native Americans).

Terree P. Summers, an economist and author specializing in healthcare and the federal budget, was able to get first-hand information about IHS healthcare by way of her grandfather, who was an IHS physician. Summers witnessed the effects of government healthcare: rationing, lack of access, inferior care, and long waits – the type of poor care Native Americans are used to (“Not Just the VA”).

Native Nations Institute’s research reported that “tribal management leads to better access and better quality healthcare than relying on the IHS-run system” (“Native Americans”). Private healthcare run by individuals within tribes could lead to healthier lives for Native Americans if they had such an option – the simple freedom to allow Indians to open doctor’s offices, clinics, and hospitals on their reservations would see improvements in the quality of healthcare: “when hospitals and physicians compete for patients, they provide better care. Private sector healthcare provides higher-quality services” (Hollis). However, Indians cannot even own private property on their reservations (“Unlocking the Wealth”).

The lack of healthcare options is a huge problem that affects millions of Native Americans. The ongoing healthcare failure’s real issue has repeatedly been ignored. The excuses made by the US Commission on Civil Rights in 2004: lack of qualified people, lack of funding, maintenance of aging facilities, and retention and recruiting of qualified healthcare providers – are all effects of the problem, not causes (“Not Just the Va”).

In 2008, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act was proposed that would enable tribal members choices, including being able to purchase private insurance. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) proposed this bill that was shot down 28-67 (“Not Just the VA”). Now, Native Americans do have the option like everyone else to sign up for Obamacare; but they get the same effects of government-run healthcare: few choices, declining quality of medical care, long waits for healthcare services, picking and choosing who “really” needs the services (older people vs. younger people, for example), and increasing costs of premiums (“Obamacare Rationing”). Both the IHS and Obamacare are options for Native Americans that end with the same result: poor quality healthcare. “The problem is not one of spending; it is one of structure. Care provided to Native Americans is poor not merely because of IHS’ inadequate funding, but because tribal members have few other options” (Hollis). The solution to the problem is to allow Native Americans the freedom to have private healthcare – which has been proven to be the best possible type of healthcare available. “Where there is no competition, there is no accountability. And where there is no accountability, there is no assurance of quality” (Hollis).

Anderson, Terry. "Native Americans and the Public Option." Wall Street Journal (2009): 1. web. 13 January 2015.

—. "Unlocking the Wealth of Indian Nations." Townhall (2013): 1. Web. 20 January 2015.

AP News. "As Tribal Health Care Woes Mount, Feds Get Blame." Townhall (2014): 1. Web. 20 January 2015.

Hollis, Laura. "The Real Lessons from the VA Scandal." Townhall (2014): 1. web. 15 January 2015.

Summers, Terree P. "Not Just the VA." The Freeman 12 (2014): 1. web. 13 January 2015.

—. "Obamacare Rationing: It’s Already Here." The Freeman (2014): 1. Web. 20 January 2014.

The Kaiser Family Foundation. "Life Expectancy at Birth (in years), by Race/Ethnicity." 2010. web. 19 January 2015.

Delusional Statist Thinking: Nothing More than Babies Crying

The delusions that people are under that make our society less-free and government-dependent range from smoking laws to food stamps. Read the opinion of Lawrence W. Reed, president of the Foundation for Economic Education: http://fee.org/the_freeman/detail/27-government-must-have-the-power-to-make-people-take-better-care-of-themselves