Smoke and mirrors tax laws

I saw the headline, "Bush signs $70B tax cut" and I winced. While tossing our future into the financial toilet with the worst deficit spending ever, he's reducing the available funds to pay for his little projects.

Then I read the article. First, some of the provisions only extend tax cuts already in place (the 15% max on cap gains and dividends and also some sort of small business tax). One provision relates to overseas contracts, and has been called an illegal trade subsidy by the EU, and the EU is threatening sanctions. The one glimmer in this law is a modification to slow down the impact of the alternative minimum tax for another year.

What's more, this tax cut sounds great to voters who only hear "$70B tax cut!" -- even if the majority of them won't be affected at all. It has been done to help businesses and the rich while at the same time impacting the voters for the coming elections. They are buying votes with smoke and mirrors.

Preconception and the CDC

OK, I've read the CDC preconception guidelines several times now. I don't see what the hubbub is about.

First, there is a national problem: 85% of all women give birth at least once, and about a third of the children have health problems. Also, about half of the women unintentionally get pregnant at least once. So there is definitely a problem. Part (maybe most) of the problem stems from a lack of knowledge and a lack of available/appropriate health care. A large part of the country can't afford health care. The intent of the CDC guidelines seems to be to address these issues.

Second, if you are physically able to get pregnant, then you might get pregnant, whether you want to or not. Accidents happen. Being "childfree" is not 100% effective against pregnancy.

Third, there has also been some hubbub about the focus on women's health, not men's. Note that the guidance is all about getting a healthy child at the end of the pregnancy, not about getting pregnant, for which the man's health and activities would be important. Frankly, the man's health doesn't really matter much for this process (yes, I know there are exceptions to this). If he's got reproductive problems, most likely the swimmers won't find their target, and pregnancy doesn't happen. Unfair as it may seem, the woman gets to be the incubator.

The guidelines seem focused primarily on providing healthcare and information that was not previously provided. Even those with health insurance may find that insurance doesn't always cover preconception issues. It is not about withholding medicine from those that need it, but making the patient aware of the effects of the medicine on a potential pregnancy.

Several have posted about doctors that won't prescribe certain medicines to women of child-bearing ability, even if the woman never plans to have children. That has nothing to do with the current guidelines, but about poor doctor-patient relationships. Get a different doctor.

Yes, I understand that some are afraid of how the guidelines will be abused by over-conservative doctors and politicians. However, it is apparent that those same docs and politicians will do so anyway, while the guidelines work towards providing much needed information and resources to those who don't have them.