Actually, I think you're being unconstitutional.

I just don't get it. What is their motivation? Do they just want to make him look bad because they don't like him? Or are they really so deluded they think that filing suit is going to help in any way? What do they hope to achieve? I just don't get it. Why is it that seven Republican state Attorney Generals have filed suit against the President of the United States? I've been thinking about it since I saw an article in the paper yesterday on the topic. I still don't get it.

Ostensibly the suit is because the government had made it so that religious companies would be required to pay for health care coverage for contraceptives which is felt to be unconstitutional because 'it violates the first amendment'. However, that position was already rescinded and altered so that it would be not the religious affiliated companies themselves that had to pay for the contraceptive coverage but the insurance providers that would have to pay. Then there is the fact that it was not just the President that was responsible for the legal requirement. I know this without bothering to look it up for the simple fact that the President is not a soveriegn and the system of checks and balances that were designed into our government generally prevent him from doing anything without the approval of literally dozens if not hundreds of other people.

Ignoring the fact that if there is blame to be placed it doesn't belong to just one person there are still a lot of problems with their stated goal. Currently the legal requirement is that the insurance providers of religious companies have to pay for contraceptives for employees. It is not the company itself that has to pay it. A religious company might be indirectly paying for it in that they have to pay premiums in order to retain the insurance and some of their premium might go toward the contraceptives- but that is no different than it was before. Unless a religious company were to use a insurance provider that did not cover any sort of contraceptive device (of which there are none, to my knowledge) then their premiums might always have indirectly gone to cover contraceptives for a person covered by that insurance provider that worked at a non-religious company. The position currently is arguably no different than it was in that situation- as far as the company ought to be concerned, at least.

I would even go so far as to say that the original legal requirement (the one that was rescinded) ought to be considered constitutional. Because while it would force a religious company to pay for contraceptives for the employees that might want them it was neither forcing the employers (or employees) to use them nor saying that their ideology was invalid in any way. The employers and employees still retained the right to practice their religion in whatever manner they feel is morally fit. The employers could choose not to use contraceptives if that was their moral choice and the employees could use them if that was their moral choice.

I'll go farther still and say that allowing religious companies the right to deny their employees medical coverage for contraceptives is itself unconstitutional. You may feel morally outraged by the preceding statement and you may have just said or thought something along the lines of: "But freedom of religion is the first amendment." That is precisely it, in fact. A religious company that refused to provide coverage for contraceptives on the basis of 'freedom of religion' would be violating the right to freedom of religion for the person who wanted the contraceptives because the company would be imposing their own religious beliefs that contraceptives are bad on the employee. You may feel there is a inherent conflict there because you either protect the rights of the employee or you protect the rights of the company. I'm pretty sure, though, that there's something in the constitution about it being by and for the people and I don't recall anything about the rights of corporations. The people that own the company, of course, are still allowed to practice their religion as they choose but extending that right to a company would be tantamount to allowing that company to dictate the religious practices of its employees.

So, since the state Attorney Generals really don't have a foot to stand on or much of a chance to win anything from the President I can only assume they're (as Republicans) trying to make the President look bad. That in and of itself is not a bad political move. Given that in recent months the economy and unemployment rate has been improving and the lowering of public opinion about the strongest Republican Presidential cantidate along with the American public's propensity to reelect Presidents the Republicans may feel pressured to help their position. And what better way to help their position than make the President look bad? Unless their lack of forthought backfires, of course. I hope it does. But then I also think that WWIII might not be bad bad solution to our economic troubles (that's a whole other story, though). Regardless, the response I really want to give to the Attorney Generals filing suit against the President is this: "Actually, I think you're being unconstitutional."

The Death of a Friend

Two years I have known you


And at the news of your death I know not what to do

You told me yourself of death’s imminent arrival

From which you and I know there will be no revival

For longer than I have known you your life has been leeching away

Though it was not known as terminal until this day



I cannot say that beauty has always marked your face

Nor can I say that you were completely filled with grace

But you were the perfect representation of creation

And a glorious bastion to the imagination

While you did not go to college-

You were filled with a depth of knowledge

We never held a warm embrace

But I know each line of your face

I know nostalgia will always take me with a wiff of your smell-

Or whatever else reminds me of you as well



We’ve been walking together but now it is the path of uncertainty

You know what to do with you but what of me?

You have advised me to spare myself the grief

And make our future together even more brief

As soon as I can I will take the branching path-

For me there could be infinite steps but for you it is only a matter of math

In one hundred days exactly you will be no more

And never again will I pass through your door

The intervening pages in the story of your life are not yet all filled, my friend,

But already I can see just a little ahead the indelible writ of ‘THE END’

Bad Punchline: God Gave You a Computer

We have a particular customer who comes in daily and if you get him started on something- anything- it becomes a sermon on the virtues of whatever he happens to believe in. One of the things he happens to believe in is 'oxygen therapy' (which I wrote about previously: Oxygen Therapy). He also believes that hundreds or thousands of diseases have been cured but the drug companies won't release the cures because the therapies are much more lucrative. He believes that the government is deliberately trying to make people sick and many other... interesting theories.  Lately he has taken to saying the following at the end of his sermons while tapping his temple: "God gave you a computer. You just have to use it." My jab at this to one of the other people subjected to his speech: "Unfortunately one of his daughter's gave him a computer with an internet connection. And he uses it."

Seriously? I'm not poor enough?

Allow me to explain. If you've been reading for a while you may recall that I am not a rich person. In fact, I continue to astound myself by not going broke. Yet, despite living well below the poverty line for the entirety of my adult life thus far (which is only a few years, yes, but I'm sure that if someone told you you had to live on between $10,000 and $13,000 a year for a few years you'd find it a daunting prospect) I've also managed to continue to be surprised when I find out that I'm not poor enough. The first shock was when I applied for Mainecare (the local version of Medicare) a few years ago and despite making less than two hundred dollars a week (at the time) I was denied coverage not for age restrictions (being nineteen at the time I was under the twenty-one year age limit imposed on 'people like me') but because my 'head of household' (which was myself) made too much money for me to qualify for Mainecare. I don't know how poor you have to be to qualify for Mainecare as a single person under the age of twenty-one but I think it would be hard to work at all (I was working part time for minimum wage and wasn't poor enough) and manage to qualify.

I got my second shock when I did my 2010 tax return. A few factoids before the big reveal: I had never made more than ten thousand dollars in a year before 2010. I never claimed myself as a dependent before 2010. I never lived with anyone but my parents before 2010. I never tried to balance paying rent and buying food and going to work (not to mention finding work during that tough economic time) and everything else but I managed it somehow. And in 2010 I made a whopping $10,044 for the entire year. I would like to point out that this is significantly less than, say, a Senator might get for a speaking engagement at a college graduation just for comparison. On that ten thousand dollars I paid over six hundred dollars in taxes to state and federal government. On my tax return I claimed myself as a dependent and nothing else because I don't own a house or vehicle, have any other dependents, and though I had qualified medical expenses I might have deducted (two visits to a eye doctor and a year's worth of prescription contact lenses) that I paid for out-of-pocket they didn't add up to a large enough percentage of my income to count (in fact, if I had medical expenses that were a large enough percentage of my income to qualify I wouldn't have enough money to pay them so that they would qualify). I was shocked to discover that making that extra $45 that put me over $10,000 had cost me literally hundreds of dollars in tax returns.

One of my roommates at the time, filing singly, with herself as her only dependent (she had a child but he was claimed as a dependent by his other parent) and no other deduction claims than the ones I made in that year earned a little less than ten thousand dollars and got back every bit of her tax money. Up until this point in time I had as well. In fact, one year even though I was a dependent, after filing my tax return (which I have done myself every year since I started working on my sixteenth birthday) I received not only everything I had paid in taxes back to me but also a additional 'stimulus' check of three hundred dollars courtesy of former President Bush's stimulus package. I was not impressed that even though I was living well below the poverty line for a single person (to the tune of several thousand dollars below) and had only just nudged above ten thousand dollars I still paid in hundreds of dollars I did not get back.

Last year around this time of year I heard that the government was changing tax law so that rather than the involuntary savings program it is now for a lot of poor adults and minors those same people would be receiving a 'little more in every paycheck' because they would be paying 2% less (I will admit I do not know whether they meant 2% less of their gross income or 2% less than the amount they would have otherwise paid) toward Social Security. I think at the time I thought that sounded sort of reasonable (especially as I do not believe in the Social Security system as it stands and possibly not even if it was given the massive overhaul many people think it desperately needs) since having taxes act as an involuntary savings plan for the poor is not only silly but likely it is costly to those taxpayers who foot the bill for all the bureaucracy involved. However, after having done my taxes this year I am entirely unimpressed by the '2% less' plan.

When I did my 2011 taxes I got my latest shock. I made $12,660 last year (a significant increase if you do 'percentage of increase' math but if you instead make it a percentage of, say, how much money some congress-person spent remodeling the bathroom of their office at taxpayer expense it is quite a small percentage) and paid about $1,252 between state and local taxes. After getting done doing my taxes and looking at what the website calculated that my expected tax return would be I literally thought 'there must be some mistake'. I contacted the website's help service via instant messenger and asked them to give me a reason that my expected tax return was so much less than the previous year even though I only made a little more money and paid about twice as much in total taxes. I was informed that actually in 2010 I qualified for and received a tax credit called 'Making Work Pay' which was available to anyone that had earned over $3,000 in that year and that this year the program had been discontinued in favor of the '2% less' plan. I was doubly astounded by the implications of this. Because not only did this mean that I was really only getting back $25 (no, there are not meant to be any zeroes after the numeral '5' in case you were wondering) of the $1,058 I paid the federal government in taxes but that if I hadn't qualified for the 'Making Work Pay' tax credit in 2010 I would have received hundreds of dollars less in tax returns. I don't know how much less I would have received in tax returns but according to the IRS website as a single person I was eligible for up to $400 in tax credits and the total amount I got back was less than that so... I'm sure you can do the math.

The state of Maine government, unlike the federal government, was nice enough to refund me $115 of the $195 total I paid in state income tax. The state of Maine government also nicely asked me if I would like $3 of the money they were already keeping (not additionally) to go directly toward the state's clean election fund (I would because not only am I in favor of clean elections but also because that's three dollars less money that could potentially be used on a frivolous taxpayer-funded project like remodeling someone's never-to-be-seen-by-the-public bathroom). I don't really know why the state of Maine government refunded me over half my income tax money (though I assume it must be because of my total income level) but there was no gimicky tax credit or '2% less' plan that was touted to 'stimulate' the economy involved. It was sheerly 'this is how much you paid us and this is how much we feel you deserve to get back'. I am OK with that state of Maine the only thing that would make me happier is if you allowed me to tick little boxes to let you know where I want all of the money you deign to keep to go. Yes, I'd like to check the 'education' box, the 'infrastructure' box, and the 'tourism advocacy' box but count me out for the 'administrative overhead' (ie 'potential bathroom remodeling fund') and 'welfare benefits for unwed mothers who-moved-to-the-state-just-to-get-'free'-money' boxes.

Speaking of 'where my taxes are going' I decided to look at the breakdown of what I was paying in taxes between state and local income tax as well as social security and medicare. I had never looked before because I had never particularly cared but since I was already so worked up over the fact that I wasn't poor enough to get even a significant amount (roughly 2.4% of what I paid the federal government is simply not 'significant') of the money I paid in back I wanted to know who was getting that money. To the state of Maine I paid (as I mentioned previously) $195 in income tax. To the federal government I paid $342 in income tax. I want to state now that income tax is actually the thing to which I object the least (even though that money could be spent on a cushy toilet seat for some already well-padded govermental behind) because there is the possibility (however slight) that some of that money will contribute to education or improving roads or some other worthy project. I admit, again, that I would like to be able to tell the government what kinds of things they are allowed to spend my tax money on (or even just 50% of it- I would be happy knowing that 50% of my tax money is definitely going toward education and clean elections and they can spend the other 50% on 'administrative overhead' or blowing people up if they want) but overall income tax is the least objectionable portion of the taxes I paid.

If you add up my income tax amounts you'll find they come out to $537. Now, let me remind you that I paid a total of $1,252 which means I paid less than 43% of my taxes in income taxes. If you're like me you might be wondering 'what the fuck did that other 57% go toward'? I apologize for the expletive but I swear a lot inside my head especially at things which do not seem to be rational in any way. About 15% of my taxes ($183) went toward Medicare which I am not poor enough to qualify for. I'm too poor to get my own health insurance, I obviously (obvious because if I did get a benefit like that I would get paid more than minimum wage) do not work for a company which provides it, I literally could not spend a high enough percentage of my income to deduct medical expenses from my taxes, I could very well have used that $183 toward a visit to the dentist (or an eye doctor, neurologist, or chiropractor any of whom provide a service I might have liked to purchase but could not in the last year) and yet instead I subsidized someone else's visit to the dentist. But I'm young and in relatively good health so the $183 toward Medicare is not the part that makes me the most upset. The part that makes me the most upset is that I paid  42% of my total taxes toward Social Security. In fact, I only paid $5 less toward Social Security than I did in total income taxes and if we're only talking about federal taxes Social Security ate up just over half my taxes.

I already mentioned that I don't like the Social Security system. The only good thing it's ever done for this country is make people happier about being assigned a identification number but I think we can all agree that public goodwill toward the government about something as little as that isn't worth the money. I don't think the Social Security system should have been implemented to begin with. It obviously wasn't cooked up by anyone with a basic grasp of math because the lack of sustainability in such a system is glaringly obvious after a couple quick calculations. Yes, I understand that you only get it if you pay into it but people that receive it usually (with the exception of those who die in a timely manner) get more money out of it (even considering inflation) than they ever paid into it. Most people receiving social security now are likely to receive benefits for longer than they were a part of the taxpaying workforce. The only way the Social Security system could ever be sustainable is if the taxpaying population increased exponentially forever and since that obviously is not sustainable the Social Security system cannot and should not be sustained. I don't care if we abolish it now because I'm never going to receive Social Security benefits anyway. It simply isn't going to happen. I would be more than happy to sign a special government waiver stating that I will never collect Social Security and in the event that I am incapacitated to the point that they would be forced to spend it on me the government is welcome to save the taxpayers some money and pull the plug on me. But only if that meant I wouldn't have to pay into it. In fact, the prospect of having to pay into social security my whole life (or even the next two decades of it before the amount of social security/pensions/medicare/medicaid that the government pays out becomes equal to the whole amount of taxes that everyone pays in) depresses me so much that if I had proof of the afterlife I'd break out the ol' shotgun right now and kill myself in grand irony so that not only will Social Security not get my earnings but also so that some taxpayer funded criminal investigation service has to use resources looking into the 'suspicious nature' of my death.

Even though I seriously live well below the poverty line I still managed to pay rent to live somewhere (I live in an apartment mind you and not with some caring relative), I still managed to pay for all my own food (though I could have qualified for and received food stamp benefits), I still managed to pay for electricity, I still managed to pay for my cellphone service, I still managed to pay for 'premium' cable internet, I still managed to bring my bank balance up from three digits to four in the last year, I still managed to buy people Christmas and birthday presents, and I even managed to have a little fun while remaining completely debt-free and financially-independent of my parents and the government. I managed all of that with thousands of dollars less than what is considered 'poverty'. Yet despite the fact that I made thousands of dollars less than 'poverty' I also managed to pay about 10% of my income in taxes. And despite the fact that I made thousands of dollars less than 'poverty' I am seriously not poor enough to qualify for health insurance which I could not get any other way and I'm seriously not poor enough to get back a significant portion of the taxes which I pay yet I seriously subsidized someone else's healthcare and I seriously subsidized someone else's retirement and I seriously paid money that could well go to purchase a toilet seat to cushion some bureaucratic governmental behind. Apparently I am a very serious person- but not seriously poor enough.

Smilingly Cynical

Someone told me recently that I was the most pleasant person they knew because I was always smiling and happy. This made it necessary for me to ask my friend Chris about my current level of cynicism compared to past levels. I had to ask because Chris once described me as the most cynical person he knew. His eventual response was 'slightly greater'. As in, I am more cynical now than when he called me the most cynical person he knew. I find it intriguing that I can exist in this weird dichotomy of being most pleasant for one person and most cynical for another. Apparently I'm just cynical with a smile or smilingly cynical.