O
ver
Fourth
of
July
weekend
last
summer,
Florida residents turned
on
their
televisions
to
see
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a
Democrat, slamming their state
government and its conservative
policies. Newsom spoke in plain,
inflammatory terms: “Freedom is
under attack in your state […] I urge
all of you living in Florida to join
the fight or join us in California.”
Newsom’s stunt seems to have
fallen flat with Florida voters.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a
Republican, wields more than a
10-point lead over his Democratic
opponent, Charlie Christ. The
message is clear — Floridians do
not want Newsom’s fight.
Rising interstate tension has
led many cynical pundits to warn
of impending civil war, but this
cataclysmic appraisal misses the
mark. Jenna Bednar, a professor of
public policy and political science
at the University of Michigan,
explains that in reality, “The
states are not in conflict with
one another, at least not as states.
Florida has nothing particular
against Massachusetts. Instead,
federalism has been weaponized
by politicians pursuing a partisan
agenda.”
America
today
is
not
the
America of 1861. The institutional
differences
between
North
and South that allowed us to
descend into the Civil War have
been
eliminated.
Florida
and
Massachusetts
are
no
longer
split by such a fundamental issue
like
slavery.
The
incendiary
regionalism
that
motivated
Californians and Texans to take
up arms against one another has
cooled.
In its place, crippling red and
blue factionalism has emerged to
dominate the scene. Opportunist
politicians
have
noticed
and
capitalized. Bednar makes clear,
however, that their “partisan
games are not as threatening
to the federal union as much as
they exacerbate the threat to
democracy by feeding polarization
and the distrust of the democratic
process that polarization spawns.”
Democratic
and
Republican
governors are making headlines
for radical acts of political theater,
while
the
average
American
suffers. Newsom is busy with
attack
ads
while
California’s
homeless population makes up
one-fifth of the national number.
Rather than sitting down with
the
Biden
administration
to
discuss fixing illegal immigration,
DeSantis
threatened
to
send
migrants
to
the
President’s
Delaware home, and the situation
at the border remains a disaster.
Too much spectacle, never
enough solutions. Bednar says, “At
the state level … these politicians
are seeking national attention,
often because they have national
ambitions like wanting to run
for president.” Governing in the
interest of the moderate majority
does not make you a household
name. Noisy, political messages do.
America cannot survive such
intense dissonance forever. A
union built upon good faith, trust
and mutual respect has no place
for animus and enmity.
We
have
seen
the
early
consequences of our discord. The
January 6 insurrection at the
Capitol was only the beginning if
hyper-partisan suicide is the path
we choose. And there is evidence
from February 2021 to suggest
we already have, with 20% of
Republicans and 13% of Democrats
believing political violence to be
justifiable.
These are large, dangerous
numbers,
with
obvious
implications. “Partisan games,” as
Bednar calls them, do not remain
games indefinitely. They escalate
out of control quickly. While
conflict in the U.S. still remains
unlikely, the lesson of the Civil
War and the years preceding is
clear: we must reconcile now. We
do not have much time, and each
act of political violence makes the
task harder.
Nevertheless, there is cause
for hope. Fringe groups and
paramilitaries
may
yearn
for
bloody societal breakdown, but
most of us do not. Roughly three in
10 Americans see polarization as a
top issue. The number might sound
low, but only inflation and crime
ranked higher on Americans’ lists.
We know who to blame for
the problem, too. Dissatisfaction
with Republicans and Democrats
is at an all time high, with 62%
of Americans now supporting
the idea of a serious third party.
DeSantis and Newsom can spend
their
time
dueling
for
2024
presidential bids, but the rest of us
will get to work.
The American primary system
leads to more fanatic candidates
moving onto the general election,
guaranteeing resentment among
the
losing
party.
Americans
more aligned with third party
candidates still often vote for one
of the major party candidates
because of how unlikely their first
choice actually winning office is.
Nonpartisan primaries force
all candidates to run in one
election, giving more moderate,
generally appealing candidates an
advantage. In Alaska, one of few
places in the U.S. to have adopted
nonpartisan primaries, moderate
Lisa Murkowski’s victory provides
proof of the concept. Despite
voting to impeach Trump, a near
death sentence in many other
Republican primaries, Murkowski
won the primary for her seat by
a significant margin. Ranked-
choice voting, another system
Alaska uses, allows voters to list
candidates in the order they prefer
them, which gives third party
supporters the opportunity to
voice their opinion without tossing
away their ballot.
There are realistic options
to bring us back from the brink.
America is not beyond fixing,
but we must care enough to meet
the task. Cynicism by moderates
allows the fate of our nation to be
decided by the passions of radicals.
Now is not the time for indifference
and aversion, but confidence and
resolve. If we view our current
system as unchangeable, then our
future becomes inevitable.
Jack
Brady
is
an
Opinion
Columnist and can be reached at
jackbra@umich.edu.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
10 — Wednesday, November 9, 2022
Taxing the rich may be the answer to our Social Security crisis
Ambika Tripathi/Opinion Cartoonist
I
f you’ve ever been paid for
a job and received a pay
stub, you would have seen
a section off to the right that lists
all the money you’ve paid to taxes,
and where it is going. Outside
of Federal income taxes, the
largest section is one called Social
Security, listed under your taxes as
FICA SS.
What is social security? Social
Security is a flat rate paid by all
workers (6.2% of income) and
employers (a matching 6.2%) into
a transfer program. FICA, the
Federal
Income
Contributions
Act, is a payroll tax (meaning
it comes out of your income)
that funds both Social Security
and Medicare. In the case of
Social Security, workers pay the
designated percentage of their
income and retirees receive that
money in the form of a monthly
payout to help support them after
retiring. The program succeeds
under the assumption that those
workers will receive the same
benefits once they retire.
This
assumption,
however,
seems to be less of a guarantee
in
recent
years.
The
fear
surrounding social security has
grown dramatically in the past
few years, with the possibility
that Generation Z (current and
soon-to-be
college
students)
is paying into it without the
promise of receiving the benefits.
Current college students would be
drastically affected by this, as they
would pay 6.2% of their lifetime
into this program, only to not
receive any benefits by the time
they retire.
This could happen for a few
reasons. First, people are living
longer than when the program
was initially created, meaning
that payments are being paid
out for much longer than was
anticipated when Social Security
started. Additionally, the birth
rate
is
going
down.
Social
security was instituted in 1935,
and was followed shortly after
by the generation nicknamed
the “baby boomers” due to the
drastic increase in the birth rate.
Because there were many young
workers paying into the program,
Social Security was much easier
to maintain. The U.S. fertility
rate has decreased by almost 50%
since 1960, leading to a decrease in
funding for Social Security. Lastly,
there has been a significant decline
in funding of real wage growth,
meaning wages are staying more
stagnant
than
expected,
and
hence, funding from increased
incomes is not a source of growth
for Social Security.
The solution to this problem
comes in the form of a popular
sentiment
from
college-aged
voters: tax the rich. A key factor
of Social Security is that there is
a taxable income cap. What this
means is that workers are only
taxed for Social Security on the
first $147,000 of their income,
but not on any income made over
that. This taxable income covers
about 83% of aggregate earnings.
If the tax were raised to cover
90% of aggregate earnings, 20%
of the long term shortfalls of the
Social Security budget would be
solved. The more this cap is raised,
the more the long-term problem
of Social Security funding is
mitigated.
This is not an unprecedented
approach. The other FICA tax
on your paystub is Medicare.
Medicare also used to have a
taxable income cap; however, it was
removed in 1993. It is important to
note that the Medicare tax is only
1.45% of income, so raising the cap
was less controversial and led to
greater funding for the program.
Nevertheless, what this shows is
that this change is a feasible one,
and necessary to guarantee the
financial safety of retirees in our
country.
Additionally,
it’s
important
to note that the majority of job
growth since 1979 has come from
the top 10% of earners. This top-
heavy form of growth means the
majority of taxable income is not
growing (accounting for inflation),
while the untaxed income is
growing considerably.
Despite this, it is important
to note that there is a reason for
this taxable income cap. Social
Security benefits are progressive
in nature, meaning that the
less money you’ve made in your
lifetime, the higher percentage of
the money you’ve given to Social
Security you will receive. (This
is designed to keep people with
lower incomes out of poverty
once they retire.) People with
higher incomes are already giving
more to the system and receiving
proportionally less, so the taxable
income cap is an attempt to cancel
out how this may be unfair.
Although
individuals
with
incomes
above
$147,000
may
not benefit as much from Social
Security as the taxable income rate
is raised, there is a high chance
that people they care about would
be affected. An estimated 40% of
older adults would be in poverty
without Social Security. Mothers,
fathers, siblings, friends and more
are relying on this program to keep
them afloat in retirement. This
demonstrates
how
devastating
the collapse of Social Security
would be for everyone, as even if
an individual isn’t affected, people
in their life are.
“Taxing the rich” is not a new
phenomenon
in
our
country.
By raising the Social Security
income tax, we as a country can
make
significant
progress
in
guaranteeing people who have paid
into this system for their whole
lives the security they deserve in
their retirement, as those before
them were guaranteed.
Claudia Flynn is an Opinion
Columnist and can be reached at
claudf@umich.edu.
CLAUDIA FLYNN
Opinion Columnist
Why end-of-life paperwork is important
even for young college students
T
his past June, two Phi
Gamma Delta fraternity
brothers at the University
of Missouri were charged in the
hazing
of
19-year-old
Danny
Santulli. On Oct. 20, 2021, the then-
freshman pledge had been forced
to drink a liter of vodka in addition
to being funnel-fed a beer. He
arrived at the hospital in cardiac
arrest, and experienced brain
damage so severe that he currently
lives wheelchair bound, blind and
unable to communicate.
Unfortunately,
the
Santulli
hazing case is far from rare, and
mirrors
drinking
and
hazing
incidents here at the University of
Michigan. Our community, and
Ann Arbor at large, is a hub for bar
crawls, fraternity parties, block
parties, tailgates and other events
that are often the perfect recipe
for a night in the emergency room.
Given these risks, it is concerning
that so many young people do not
have a plan for what they would
want to have happen to them
in the event that they are too
incapacitated to make their own
medical decisions, especially in
cases where life-or-death options
need to be assessed.
In the U.S., the official document
that outlines these predetermined
medical wishes is known as an
advanced health care directive, or
living will. An advanced directive
provides a crucial framework for
health care professionals to tailor
their choices or treatments to
patients’ preferences and keeps
autonomy in the patient’s hands
when they are the most vulnerable.
Similarly, it clears up confusion
or disagreement about a patient’s
preferences between loved ones
making decisions on their behalf.
However, college-aged students
have a dangerous mindset that
terminal illness, coma or injury
won’t apply to them for the
foreseeable future, and they opt to
focus on more immediate issues
like
longitudinal
internships,
graduate school or job offers.
The long life expectancy of the
average American further instills
the disregard for the creation of
advanced directives at a young age.
The COVID-19 pandemic, coupled
with
the
increasingly
higher
rates of intoxication incidence
and mortality in this age group,
clearly demonstrates that college
students are more vulnerable than
they think. By forgoing the steps
necessary to establish proper end-
of-life procedures, they are at the
forefront of propagating a public
health crisis that leaves providers
and loved ones choiceless.
It is true that undergrads have a
million things on their plates, and
the last thing we want to concern
ourselves with is enumerating the
resuscitation efforts we would
and would not be comfortable
with. But, for some young people,
they don’t even know how they
should go about consenting to
chest compressions, defibrillation,
intubation,
ventilation,
vasopressors and more. What the
heck even is a “vasopressor,” and
why should I care?
In addition to the seeming
disregard of advanced health
care directives among adults, at
no point in our lives are we ever
explained how exactly we should
handle this situation. The state
of Michigan mandates a health
class as a requirement for a high
school diploma, but nowhere in
that curriculum does it encourage
young people to consider if being
stuck on a ventilator is something
they want their bodies to rely on,
or if pharmacological intervention
to constrict their blood vessels in
attempts to raise a failing blood
pressure is worth it.
So, even for the youth proactive
enough to make an advanced
directive for themselves, their
lack
of
understanding
about
resuscitation procedures leaves
them consenting to interventions
they might not truly be comfortable
with if any ever became necessary.
The
only
instance
where
resuscitation
procedures
are
explicitly explained and discussed
to a patient is when they are
already in a hospital or clinic with
their attending physician — long
after their initial malady.
Eastern Michigan University
student
Dominic
Consiglio,
a
911 dispatcher and EMT for
Washtenaw County, has witnessed
some of the most gruesome scenes
involving college-aged students.
In his time at Huron Valley
Ambulance Partners, Consiglio
explains,
“constantly
hearing
and seeing people my age beg
for medical help when they are
bleeding out, high off drugs, or
smashed between two cars scared
me enough to get my own advanced
directive. I can’t imagine not having
precautions in place to affirm that I
do want to be resuscitated, but will
want to peacefully pass away if 30
days on a ventilator isn’t working
for my body.”
The solution to the decision-
making burden of college students,
most of whom have no medical
knowledge, is known as a Durable
Power of Attorney (DPOA). Instead
of consenting to a limited number
of procedures or time frames, a
DPOA form allows you to name
a person, known as a healthcare
proxy, to make decisions for you if
you are unable to do so. However,
DPOAs are not equitable for young
people who a) do not have people
they can trust to respect their
decisions or core values, and b)
have no one in their circle with an
intimate understanding of the dire
outcomes of a resuscitation.
Critics of advanced health care
directives, DPOAs and other end-
of-life
paperwork,
particularly
for youth, often cite a religious or
moral code to substantiate their
belief that humans do not have the
right to deny life-saving treatment.
For example, the Catholic Church’s
official stance is that any kind of
physician-assisted death is both
a sin and congruent to suicide.
Parents of terminal young adults,
too, fight back against end-of-life
paperwork that does not allow
them to determine their child’s
fate.
These concerning stances are
strikingly similar to anti-abortion
arguments that catalyzed the
recent overturning of Roe v.
Wade by demonstrating a one-
dimensional perspective on life
quality. Some pro-life proponents
do not believe that the extent
to which a baby would live a
comfortable life should be a factor
in the decision to have an abortion.
This belief mirrors their opinion
that our inherent personhood is
something we do not have the
right to give up, even in the case of
permanent brain damage, organ
failure or hospitalization.
The future can be bright,
however.
Michigan
legislation
mandating
organ
registry
questions
for
the
acquisition
of driver’s licenses needs to be
expanded to push youths to
complete a more exhaustive list of
yes and no questions about their
wishes coming out of a critical
car accident. Health insurance
companies, too, can do their part
to incentivize young adults to plan
for a terminal health care crisis
through life co-insurance plans,
lower ER copays for people with
end-of-life paperwork and same-
rate health insurance coverage for
post-resuscitation care.
NAMRATHA NELAPUDI
Opinion Columnist
Call
Katie!
248-808-8587
Tackling political polarization in the U.S.
JACK BRADY
Opinion Columnist
Read more at MichiganDaily.com