Chicago IL Saturday AM, March 28, 2009
Editors, Washington Post
Gentlepeople:
The Washington Post Thursday, March 26 Article "Congress deals a blow to 'honest budgeting'" notes Congressional leaders "were spooked by a Congressional Budget Office analysis of President Obama's $3.6 trillion proposal that found the government would run a deficit of $9.3 trillion... over the next decade," adding that Obama's budget "was a 10-year financial plan" that "endeavored to be more honest."
Some might doubt the honesty of a 10-year plan offered by someone constitutionally limited to eight years of office, but this man wrote two autobiographies before he was 50 years old, so I guess it's all right.
Even a single autobiography at this age would be audacious considering the thin experience pool it had to work with: four crucial pre-teen years slogging thru the mud of Indonesia, eight years as an Illinois state senator (a job requiring no more skill than a third string Washington Redskins jock strap attendant, without the responsibility.) Beyond that, it was 'Community Activist', a Chicago euphemism for Democrat vote hustler.
The article continues approvingly describing Obama's budget contributions such as putting aside "$250 billion for more funding for fiscal stabilization" and "providing relief from the alternative minimum tax." This is a remarkable performance from someone who has never met a payroll, whose most important management duty of his life has been organizing senate office Christmas parties, and who made his first buck-stops-here decision only ten weeks ago. The lightness of this resume is even more startling compared with three of his four immediate predecessors: multiple term governors of the largest, second-largest, and 30th-largest states. Even the incredibly incompetent George W Bush was managing partner for 5 years of a private sector entity with a $60 million annual payroll.
Next, the Post notes that Mr. Obama and the Democrats in Congress "want to spend more on education, energy and other popular programs." A quick computer enabled search of the United States Constitution shows that of its 8,000 words, not one of them is 'education' or 'energy'. Could the Democrats be proposing evading the Constitution?
Ah, but you say: "General welfare clause" to which James Madison, in his Federalist #41 wrote: "Some [Constitution critics] ... have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power to "provide for the... general welfare of the United States" amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the... general welfare.... "Had no other... definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution... the authors of the objection might have had some color for it.... But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?"
And sure enough, following that semicolon are 17 specific clauses defining what Congress can do, but again no mention of the words education or energy, nor health, homeland, housing, transportation, agriculture, or security, either.
Next The Post grumps that neither Mr. Obama nor Congressional Democrats "want to level with voters about the need to pay for such programs (Education, energy, etc) through increased taxes." Even this proposition gets cloudy when you consider that the Commerce Department's 2009 Statistical Abstract of the United States shows 65% of the $2.3 trillion total of the US government income in 2007 came from the bank accounts of a very small portion of voters, employers, and even this group is further special in that it can pass on the cost of these taxes to their customers, a pretty much constantly growing segment of a growing national economy, all but eliminating the need for ballot box influence.
A national political commentator recently suggested that rather than the federal government spending $trillions to jump start the economy, wouldn't leaving that 65% of federal income undisturbed with the voters do an even better job? But of course that would allow no 'redistribution', and on top of that, the voters might save it instead of spend it - a practice you could never accuse the federal government of.
According to generally accepted, natural, fundamental laws of economics, what the President and Democrat Leaders of Congress are proposing will only make things worse, unavoidably leading to the country failing, at which point the President can announce (with the aid of his ever present teleprompter, confident smile, and perfect delivery): "The country is too big to fail. To prevent it, we are nationalizing the entire economy: every private sector organization is hereby made a unit of the federal government, every citizen, and non-citizen, are now employees of the federal government, everyone has equal income, and healthcare. May the force be with us."
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago, IL 60640
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Snarlin' Arlen shows his core value...
...getting reelected.
Chicago Wednesday PM, March 25, 2009
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
Your editorial of Wednesday, March 25 "The Power of 41" notes one of those rare occasions when Senator Specter of Pennsylvania acts like a Republican for a change, backing a filibuster of the "Free Union Bosses from the Tyranny of the secret ballot" bill. You add that for this to occur, there's probably a reelection campaign coming up: "Mr. Specter is undoubtedly hoping that by getting on the right side of what has become a grassroots issue for the GOP, he might avoid an ugly primary battle for his Senate seat next year."
We had a similar situation in the fall of 1991, when Senator Specter uncharacteristically was a strong supporter of Clarence Thomas for the Supreme court. The Senator had no problem with a primary challenge in 1992, but he was forced to pull a squeaker win in the general that fall.
But going back five years from that the Senator was finally able to vote his conscience, against the nomination of the finest legal mind of a generation, Robert Bork, conveniently only eleven months after a healthy election win in November 1986.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Chicago Wednesday PM, March 25, 2009
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
Your editorial of Wednesday, March 25 "The Power of 41" notes one of those rare occasions when Senator Specter of Pennsylvania acts like a Republican for a change, backing a filibuster of the "Free Union Bosses from the Tyranny of the secret ballot" bill. You add that for this to occur, there's probably a reelection campaign coming up: "Mr. Specter is undoubtedly hoping that by getting on the right side of what has become a grassroots issue for the GOP, he might avoid an ugly primary battle for his Senate seat next year."
We had a similar situation in the fall of 1991, when Senator Specter uncharacteristically was a strong supporter of Clarence Thomas for the Supreme court. The Senator had no problem with a primary challenge in 1992, but he was forced to pull a squeaker win in the general that fall.
But going back five years from that the Senator was finally able to vote his conscience, against the nomination of the finest legal mind of a generation, Robert Bork, conveniently only eleven months after a healthy election win in November 1986.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
"Everyone hates ethanol"...
...and why not?
Chicago, Tuesday AM, 24 March 2009
Editors, The Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
A letter in the Monday, March 23 WSJ "Break the Addiction to Foreign Oil" is not a particularly coherent response to your Monday, March 15 editorial "Everyone Hates Ethanol" ("Researchers... recently found that ethanol... reduces carbon emissions by up to 59%." Doesn't "up to 59%" include everything from zero thru 58%?) The letter's closing line goes completely over the edge: "The benefits of ethanol are irrefutable -- greater energy independence, cleaner air and enhanced economic growth." Has the writer and his 'Growth Energy' associate, Retired Army General Wesley Clark, considered that ethanol comes from a 2-dimensional space, the surface of the earth, and only 1/3 of that not covered by salt water, further limited by its inability to grow just anywhere, such as nearly uncrossable, let alone untillable, mountains, vast deserts, thousand-foot thick ice caps - all sorts of corn-unfriendly places.
Oil on the other hand comes from a 3-dimensional space, all that's under the surface of the earth, and the entire surface, covered by water or not. The depth of this space is ultimately limited to 4,000 miles, but so far we've only tried the first eight miles, and that in only a very few locations.
The WSJ editorial board is accused of having an "addiction to foreign oil" preventing it from looking at "homegrown alternatives." Aren't some of those 'alternatives' ANWR and the continental shelf, currently in the death grip of the environmentalist wackos?
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Chicago, Tuesday AM, 24 March 2009
Editors, The Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
A letter in the Monday, March 23 WSJ "Break the Addiction to Foreign Oil" is not a particularly coherent response to your Monday, March 15 editorial "Everyone Hates Ethanol" ("Researchers... recently found that ethanol... reduces carbon emissions by up to 59%." Doesn't "up to 59%" include everything from zero thru 58%?) The letter's closing line goes completely over the edge: "The benefits of ethanol are irrefutable -- greater energy independence, cleaner air and enhanced economic growth." Has the writer and his 'Growth Energy' associate, Retired Army General Wesley Clark, considered that ethanol comes from a 2-dimensional space, the surface of the earth, and only 1/3 of that not covered by salt water, further limited by its inability to grow just anywhere, such as nearly uncrossable, let alone untillable, mountains, vast deserts, thousand-foot thick ice caps - all sorts of corn-unfriendly places.
Oil on the other hand comes from a 3-dimensional space, all that's under the surface of the earth, and the entire surface, covered by water or not. The depth of this space is ultimately limited to 4,000 miles, but so far we've only tried the first eight miles, and that in only a very few locations.
The WSJ editorial board is accused of having an "addiction to foreign oil" preventing it from looking at "homegrown alternatives." Aren't some of those 'alternatives' ANWR and the continental shelf, currently in the death grip of the environmentalist wackos?
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Sunday, March 22, 2009
WSJ loses its editorial balance for a minute...
WSJ Editorial "Bowling Pins and Needles" Saturday, March 21, 2009:
"President Obama is getting lashed by the political correctness police for a comment on "The Tonight Show" with Jay Leno Thursday that his bowling skills were "like the Special Olympics or something." Mr. Obama's attempt to make light of his poor score may have been in poor taste, but the real gutter ball goes to anyone trying to score political points off the remark.
"Even before the show aired, the White House apologized for the gaffe and Mr. Obama called Special Olympics Chairman Timothy Shriver from Air Force One. Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton hurried to assure the world that President Obama believes the Special Olympics are a wonderful program that gives people with disabilities an 'opportunity to shine.'
"Of course he does. Even if the joke was unbecoming, Mr. Obama was clearly trying to make fun of himself, not special needs children or adults. The best response came from Special Olympics bowling champion Kolan McConiughey, who has bowled five perfect games in the past four years and challenged the President to a match. 'He bowled a 129. I bowl a 300. I could beat that score easily'. Mr. McConiughey said.
"The Special Olympics took the opportunity to admonish that 'words hurt and words do matter.' Yet it's impossible to believe that Mr. Obama doesn't understand that these Olympians are great -- and the best way to show that would have been to treat them as tough enough to get past a wisecrack."
I responded:
Chicago Saturday, March 21, 2009 2:28 PM
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
What possible good do you see in wasting 243 words of the most valuable opinion space in Journalism on defending Obama from “getting lashed“ for another outrageous tongue slip that tells much more about him than the people he insulted. Sure he apologized to everyone in sight, and I'm sure Special Olympians are no more immune to Obama worship than any other segment of the population. You say “Mr. Obama was clearly trying to make fun of himself….” That’s for sure, by clearly comparing himself to special Olympians.
Did you have similar WSJ editorials chastising the ‘political correctness police’ for their lashing of misspelling ‘potato’ and mispronouncing ‘nuclear,’ neither remotely demeaning anyone other than the speaker?
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago 60640
"President Obama is getting lashed by the political correctness police for a comment on "The Tonight Show" with Jay Leno Thursday that his bowling skills were "like the Special Olympics or something." Mr. Obama's attempt to make light of his poor score may have been in poor taste, but the real gutter ball goes to anyone trying to score political points off the remark.
"Even before the show aired, the White House apologized for the gaffe and Mr. Obama called Special Olympics Chairman Timothy Shriver from Air Force One. Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton hurried to assure the world that President Obama believes the Special Olympics are a wonderful program that gives people with disabilities an 'opportunity to shine.'
"Of course he does. Even if the joke was unbecoming, Mr. Obama was clearly trying to make fun of himself, not special needs children or adults. The best response came from Special Olympics bowling champion Kolan McConiughey, who has bowled five perfect games in the past four years and challenged the President to a match. 'He bowled a 129. I bowl a 300. I could beat that score easily'. Mr. McConiughey said.
"The Special Olympics took the opportunity to admonish that 'words hurt and words do matter.' Yet it's impossible to believe that Mr. Obama doesn't understand that these Olympians are great -- and the best way to show that would have been to treat them as tough enough to get past a wisecrack."
I responded:
Chicago Saturday, March 21, 2009 2:28 PM
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
What possible good do you see in wasting 243 words of the most valuable opinion space in Journalism on defending Obama from “getting lashed“ for another outrageous tongue slip that tells much more about him than the people he insulted. Sure he apologized to everyone in sight, and I'm sure Special Olympians are no more immune to Obama worship than any other segment of the population. You say “Mr. Obama was clearly trying to make fun of himself….” That’s for sure, by clearly comparing himself to special Olympians.
Did you have similar WSJ editorials chastising the ‘political correctness police’ for their lashing of misspelling ‘potato’ and mispronouncing ‘nuclear,’ neither remotely demeaning anyone other than the speaker?
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago 60640
The New Tork Times actually says something resonable...
...for a change:
New York Times Friday, March 20, 2009 Editorial "Political Animal Behavior 101"
"Congress is regularly mocked for earmarking taxpayer money to study exotic life cycles; this year’s favorite target is the Mormon cricket’s pestilential threat to agriculture in Utah. Too bad the Capitol has no appetite to study the ultimate in symbiotic survival: the relationship between campaign donors and the customized appropriations they are fed by grateful lawmakers.
"Democratic leaders in the House have been swatting back Representative Jeff Flake as if he were a Mormon cricket as he repeatedly proposes that the ethics committee start a
cause-and-effect study of earmarking and campaign money. Mr. Flake, a Republican from Arizona who is an earmark battler, is now calling on the committee to investigate the large donations to defense appropriators made by the PMA Group, the lobbying
powerhouse that recently shut itself down after an F.B.I. raid over election-law violations.
"Mr. Flake has picked the right place to start the investigating: some of the PMA Group’s lobbyists learned their craft as staffers in the appropriations subcommittee led by
Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania. Once in the free-enterprise zone, the PMA Group scored numerous defense earmarks and doled out generous gifts to Mr. Murtha and other subcommittee members.
"This relationship cries out for an ethics inquiry. And we are pleased that Mr. Flake is refusing to be discouraged by his colleagues’ lack of courage. He reports that he picks up a few more supporters with each new challenge to the House ways of doing business. Mr. Flake is now bolstered by Peter Visclosky, a top Democrat on appropriations who announced after the F.B.I. raid that he’s returning $271,000 in donations from the PMA
Group.
"Mr. Visclosky has endorsed Mr. Flake’s quest, urging fellow Democratic leaders to push for an investigation of how the PMA Group’s clout worked. Of course, everyone on the Hill already knows the answer. But the best hope of ending this cynical influence trading is for the taxpayers to hear the full and shameful truth."
I respond:
Sunday, March 22, 2009 4:40 AM
Gentlepeople:
The New York Times deserves as much commendation for their Friday, March 20, 2009 Editorial "Political Animal Behavior 101" as its subjects, Congressmen Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican, and Peter Visclosky, Indiana Democrat, for their David-like attack on Congressional earmarks. But your closing comment "the best hope of ending this cynical influence trading is for the taxpayers to hear the full and shameful truth," well-meaning as it is, from past experience is not real encouraging.
The solution is found looking upstream, in this case at the 2009 Statistical Abstract of the United States, that says in 2007, 65.64% of the total federal income that year ($2.568 trillion) was 'withheld' by employers from employee paychecks. 'Withheld' is a euphamism for the entire amount coming into the feds as checks on employer bank accounts and immediately deposited to the US general fund, no better demonstrated than the fact that if any of those checks fail to arrive, it is the employer who goes to jail, never the employee.
The employers are not real happy with this, but 1) they don't have enough votes to complain, and 2) unlike the employee, they can pass it on to customers, which has worked just fine for 75 years of a regularly expanding national economy. So 535 people control 2/3 of the federal income that no one cares about, to the exteant of needing to take it out of their personal accounts and send it in. Result: earmarks. No number of editorials or letters to congress creatures has had any effect in the 66 years it has been going on.
There is an way to fix this. Get 218 members of the House of Representatives and 60 Senators, and an agreeable president to sign it in to law, and change paragraph 3402 of United States Code Title 26 — 'Internal Revenue Code' Subtitle C 'Employment taxes' Chapter 24 'Collection Of Income Tax At Source On Wages... from "every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax..." to "every employer making payment of wages shall pay all of those wages to the employee...." Leave the tax calculation with the employer so that with the check they include a stern note telling the employee how much the feds are expecting him to send in within 30 days. Would it be easy to do? Probably not all at once, but a good place for the "frog in boiling water' technique: over a three-month quarter convert the 0.1 percent of the population w/ names starting with 'x' to a new, real 'pay-as-you-go' system, add in a new letter every quarter for 26 quarters, thru the 20% of the population w/ names starting with M and S.
Would this be inefficient? Certainly for an insatiable federal bureaucracy, but instructive for a growing portion of the electorate, sending in sizable checks every month from their own bank accounts. Questions would arise: Is the federal level the best to run health care? Education? retirement? What did the founders think of this approach? Apparently not much, since they not only didn't authorize it in the Constitution, but in fact wrote specifically prohibiting it. Little did they envision their add-on 'general welfare' clause being beaten within an inch of its life, finally threatening the very existence of the country.
Those 26 quarters would cover three elections of the House of Representatives, reelection of the entire Senate, and election of a president. People would be asking the candidates these questions, and voting on the answers. And congresscreatures would forget how to spell 'earmark', let alone use it. This is the only way the voters will ever unnderstand "the full and shameful truth" of why congress throws money around.
Arnold H. Nelson
5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL
Just after I sent that, I sent the following to some friends:
What a breakthru!
I just sent a letter to the NYTimes where I used the sentence "Little did they [the Founders] envision their add-on 'general welfare' clause being beaten within an inch of its life, finally threatening the very existence of the country."
I been wanting to use it for a long time, but today decided to find out how true it was.
So I went to the Federalist papers. I have them on my HD (192K words) and can search just fine, but recently acquired a new research tool: A 700 page paperback, $8 from Amazon, "The Federalist Papers, by Clinton Rossiter." Apparently Mr. Rossiter lived, breathed, and slept w/ the Papers for the last 40 years of his life (I think ended by suicide not too long ago, unfortunately.)
I look in the index and find "'general welfare' clause," pointing to James Madison's Federalist #41, where St. James himself writes:
"Some [Constitution critics] who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare....
"Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it.... A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ``to raise money for the general welfare.'' But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?" [Me: !!!!!]
I'm finally catching on, so go directly to US Constitution (also on HD) Article One Section Eight. And there's that semicolon, separating the infamous 'general welfare' Clause 1 from clauses 2 thru 18:
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--
And Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Mw again: I've read those 17 clauses many times, but have never found anything remotely requiring executive departments of Energy ($20bn in 2007,) Homeland Security ($39bn,) Housing and Urban Development ($45bn,) Labor ($48bn,) Transportation ($62bn,) Education ($66bn,) Agriculture ($84bn,) and Health and Human Services ($672bn.)
New York Times Friday, March 20, 2009 Editorial "Political Animal Behavior 101"
"Congress is regularly mocked for earmarking taxpayer money to study exotic life cycles; this year’s favorite target is the Mormon cricket’s pestilential threat to agriculture in Utah. Too bad the Capitol has no appetite to study the ultimate in symbiotic survival: the relationship between campaign donors and the customized appropriations they are fed by grateful lawmakers.
"Democratic leaders in the House have been swatting back Representative Jeff Flake as if he were a Mormon cricket as he repeatedly proposes that the ethics committee start a
cause-and-effect study of earmarking and campaign money. Mr. Flake, a Republican from Arizona who is an earmark battler, is now calling on the committee to investigate the large donations to defense appropriators made by the PMA Group, the lobbying
powerhouse that recently shut itself down after an F.B.I. raid over election-law violations.
"Mr. Flake has picked the right place to start the investigating: some of the PMA Group’s lobbyists learned their craft as staffers in the appropriations subcommittee led by
Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania. Once in the free-enterprise zone, the PMA Group scored numerous defense earmarks and doled out generous gifts to Mr. Murtha and other subcommittee members.
"This relationship cries out for an ethics inquiry. And we are pleased that Mr. Flake is refusing to be discouraged by his colleagues’ lack of courage. He reports that he picks up a few more supporters with each new challenge to the House ways of doing business. Mr. Flake is now bolstered by Peter Visclosky, a top Democrat on appropriations who announced after the F.B.I. raid that he’s returning $271,000 in donations from the PMA
Group.
"Mr. Visclosky has endorsed Mr. Flake’s quest, urging fellow Democratic leaders to push for an investigation of how the PMA Group’s clout worked. Of course, everyone on the Hill already knows the answer. But the best hope of ending this cynical influence trading is for the taxpayers to hear the full and shameful truth."
I respond:
Sunday, March 22, 2009 4:40 AM
Gentlepeople:
The New York Times deserves as much commendation for their Friday, March 20, 2009 Editorial "Political Animal Behavior 101" as its subjects, Congressmen Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican, and Peter Visclosky, Indiana Democrat, for their David-like attack on Congressional earmarks. But your closing comment "the best hope of ending this cynical influence trading is for the taxpayers to hear the full and shameful truth," well-meaning as it is, from past experience is not real encouraging.
The solution is found looking upstream, in this case at the 2009 Statistical Abstract of the United States, that says in 2007, 65.64% of the total federal income that year ($2.568 trillion) was 'withheld' by employers from employee paychecks. 'Withheld' is a euphamism for the entire amount coming into the feds as checks on employer bank accounts and immediately deposited to the US general fund, no better demonstrated than the fact that if any of those checks fail to arrive, it is the employer who goes to jail, never the employee.
The employers are not real happy with this, but 1) they don't have enough votes to complain, and 2) unlike the employee, they can pass it on to customers, which has worked just fine for 75 years of a regularly expanding national economy. So 535 people control 2/3 of the federal income that no one cares about, to the exteant of needing to take it out of their personal accounts and send it in. Result: earmarks. No number of editorials or letters to congress creatures has had any effect in the 66 years it has been going on.
There is an way to fix this. Get 218 members of the House of Representatives and 60 Senators, and an agreeable president to sign it in to law, and change paragraph 3402 of United States Code Title 26 — 'Internal Revenue Code' Subtitle C 'Employment taxes' Chapter 24 'Collection Of Income Tax At Source On Wages... from "every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax..." to "every employer making payment of wages shall pay all of those wages to the employee...." Leave the tax calculation with the employer so that with the check they include a stern note telling the employee how much the feds are expecting him to send in within 30 days. Would it be easy to do? Probably not all at once, but a good place for the "frog in boiling water' technique: over a three-month quarter convert the 0.1 percent of the population w/ names starting with 'x' to a new, real 'pay-as-you-go' system, add in a new letter every quarter for 26 quarters, thru the 20% of the population w/ names starting with M and S.
Would this be inefficient? Certainly for an insatiable federal bureaucracy, but instructive for a growing portion of the electorate, sending in sizable checks every month from their own bank accounts. Questions would arise: Is the federal level the best to run health care? Education? retirement? What did the founders think of this approach? Apparently not much, since they not only didn't authorize it in the Constitution, but in fact wrote specifically prohibiting it. Little did they envision their add-on 'general welfare' clause being beaten within an inch of its life, finally threatening the very existence of the country.
Those 26 quarters would cover three elections of the House of Representatives, reelection of the entire Senate, and election of a president. People would be asking the candidates these questions, and voting on the answers. And congresscreatures would forget how to spell 'earmark', let alone use it. This is the only way the voters will ever unnderstand "the full and shameful truth" of why congress throws money around.
Arnold H. Nelson
5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL
Just after I sent that, I sent the following to some friends:
What a breakthru!
I just sent a letter to the NYTimes where I used the sentence "Little did they [the Founders] envision their add-on 'general welfare' clause being beaten within an inch of its life, finally threatening the very existence of the country."
I been wanting to use it for a long time, but today decided to find out how true it was.
So I went to the Federalist papers. I have them on my HD (192K words) and can search just fine, but recently acquired a new research tool: A 700 page paperback, $8 from Amazon, "The Federalist Papers, by Clinton Rossiter." Apparently Mr. Rossiter lived, breathed, and slept w/ the Papers for the last 40 years of his life (I think ended by suicide not too long ago, unfortunately.)
I look in the index and find "'general welfare' clause," pointing to James Madison's Federalist #41, where St. James himself writes:
"Some [Constitution critics] who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare....
"Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it.... A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ``to raise money for the general welfare.'' But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?" [Me: !!!!!]
I'm finally catching on, so go directly to US Constitution (also on HD) Article One Section Eight. And there's that semicolon, separating the infamous 'general welfare' Clause 1 from clauses 2 thru 18:
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--
And Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Mw again: I've read those 17 clauses many times, but have never found anything remotely requiring executive departments of Energy ($20bn in 2007,) Homeland Security ($39bn,) Housing and Urban Development ($45bn,) Labor ($48bn,) Transportation ($62bn,) Education ($66bn,) Agriculture ($84bn,) and Health and Human Services ($672bn.)
New York Times Editorial "Political Animal Behavior 101"
Chicago Sunday AM, March 22, 2009
Editors, New York Times
Gentlepeople:
The New York Times deserves as much commendation for their Friday, March 20, 2009 Editorial "Political Animal Behavior 101" as its subjects, Congressmen Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican, and Peter Visclosky, Indiana Democrat, for their David-like attack on Congressional earmarks. But your closing comment "the best hope of ending this cynical influence trading is for the taxpayers to hear the full and shameful truth," well-meaning as it is, from past experience is not real encouraging.
The solution is found looking upstream, in this case at the 2009 Statistical Abstract of the United States, that says in 2007, 65.64% of the total federal income that year ($2.568 trillion) was 'withheld' by employers from employee paychecks. 'Withheld' is a euphamism for the entire amount coming into the feds as checks on employer bank accounts and immediately deposited to the US general fund, no better demonstrated than the fact that if any of those checks fail to arrive, it is the employer who goes to jail, never the employee.
The employers are not real happy with this, but 1) they don't have enough votes to complain, and 2) unlike the employee, they can pass it on to customers, which has worked just fine for 75 years of a regularly expanding national economy. So 535 people control 2/3 of the federal income that no one cares about, to the extent of needing to take it out of their personal accounts and send it in. Result: earmarks.
No number of editorials or letters to congress creatures has had any effect in the 66 years it has been going on. There is a way to fix this. Get 218 members of the House of Representatives and 60 Senators, and an agreeable president to sign it in to law, and change paragraph 3402 of United States Code Title 26 — 'Internal Revenue Code' Subtitle C 'Employment taxes' Chapter 24 'Collection Of Income Tax At Source On Wages... from "every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax..." to "every employer making payment of wages shall pay all of those wages to the employee...." Leave the tax calculation with the employer so that with the check they include a stern note telling the employee how much the feds are expecting him to send in within 30 days.
Would it be easy to do? Probably not all at once, but a good place for the "frog in boiling water' technique: over a three-month quarter convert the 0.1 percent of the population w/ names starting with 'x' to a new, real 'pay-as-you-go' system, add in a new letter every quarter for 26 quarters, thru the 20% of the population w/ names starting with M and S.
Would this be inefficient? Certainly for an insatiable federal bureaucracy, but instructive for a growing portion of the electorate, sending in sizable checks every month from their own bank accounts. Questions would arise: Is the federal level the best to run health care? Education? retirement? What did the founders think of this approach?
Apparently not much, since they not only didn't authorize it in the Constitution, but in fact wrote specifically prohibiting it. Little did they envision their add-on 'general welfare' clause being beaten within an inch of its life, finally threatening the very existence of the country.
Those 26 quarters would cover three elections of the House of Representatives, reelection of the entire Senate, and election of a president. People would be asking the candidates these questions, and voting on the answers. And congresscreatures would forget how to spell 'earmark', let alone use it. This is the only way the voters will ever understand "the full and shameful truth" of why congress throws money around. Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Editors, New York Times
Gentlepeople:
The New York Times deserves as much commendation for their Friday, March 20, 2009 Editorial "Political Animal Behavior 101" as its subjects, Congressmen Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican, and Peter Visclosky, Indiana Democrat, for their David-like attack on Congressional earmarks. But your closing comment "the best hope of ending this cynical influence trading is for the taxpayers to hear the full and shameful truth," well-meaning as it is, from past experience is not real encouraging.
The solution is found looking upstream, in this case at the 2009 Statistical Abstract of the United States, that says in 2007, 65.64% of the total federal income that year ($2.568 trillion) was 'withheld' by employers from employee paychecks. 'Withheld' is a euphamism for the entire amount coming into the feds as checks on employer bank accounts and immediately deposited to the US general fund, no better demonstrated than the fact that if any of those checks fail to arrive, it is the employer who goes to jail, never the employee.
The employers are not real happy with this, but 1) they don't have enough votes to complain, and 2) unlike the employee, they can pass it on to customers, which has worked just fine for 75 years of a regularly expanding national economy. So 535 people control 2/3 of the federal income that no one cares about, to the extent of needing to take it out of their personal accounts and send it in. Result: earmarks.
No number of editorials or letters to congress creatures has had any effect in the 66 years it has been going on. There is a way to fix this. Get 218 members of the House of Representatives and 60 Senators, and an agreeable president to sign it in to law, and change paragraph 3402 of United States Code Title 26 — 'Internal Revenue Code' Subtitle C 'Employment taxes' Chapter 24 'Collection Of Income Tax At Source On Wages... from "every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax..." to "every employer making payment of wages shall pay all of those wages to the employee...." Leave the tax calculation with the employer so that with the check they include a stern note telling the employee how much the feds are expecting him to send in within 30 days.
Would it be easy to do? Probably not all at once, but a good place for the "frog in boiling water' technique: over a three-month quarter convert the 0.1 percent of the population w/ names starting with 'x' to a new, real 'pay-as-you-go' system, add in a new letter every quarter for 26 quarters, thru the 20% of the population w/ names starting with M and S.
Would this be inefficient? Certainly for an insatiable federal bureaucracy, but instructive for a growing portion of the electorate, sending in sizable checks every month from their own bank accounts. Questions would arise: Is the federal level the best to run health care? Education? retirement? What did the founders think of this approach?
Apparently not much, since they not only didn't authorize it in the Constitution, but in fact wrote specifically prohibiting it. Little did they envision their add-on 'general welfare' clause being beaten within an inch of its life, finally threatening the very existence of the country.
Those 26 quarters would cover three elections of the House of Representatives, reelection of the entire Senate, and election of a president. People would be asking the candidates these questions, and voting on the answers. And congresscreatures would forget how to spell 'earmark', let alone use it. This is the only way the voters will ever understand "the full and shameful truth" of why congress throws money around. Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Obama on the Special Olympics
Chicago Saturday PM, March 21, 2009
Editors, Wall Street Journal Gentlepeople: What possible good do you see in wasting 243 words of the most valuable opinion space in Journalism on defending Obama from “getting lashed “ for another outrageous tongue slip that tells much more about him than the people he insulted ("Bowling Pins and Needles" editorial Saturday March 21, 2009.) Sure he apologized to everyone in sight, and I'm sure Special Olympians are no more immune to Obama worship than any other segment of the population. You say “Mr. Obama was clearly trying to make fun of himself.” That’s for sure, by clearly comparing himself to special Olympians.
Did you have similar WSJ editorials chastising the ‘political correctness police’ for their lashing of misspelling ‘potato’ and mispronouncing ‘nuclear,’ neither remotely demeaning anyone other than the speaker?
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago 60640
Editors, Wall Street Journal Gentlepeople: What possible good do you see in wasting 243 words of the most valuable opinion space in Journalism on defending Obama from “getting lashed “ for another outrageous tongue slip that tells much more about him than the people he insulted ("Bowling Pins and Needles" editorial Saturday March 21, 2009.) Sure he apologized to everyone in sight, and I'm sure Special Olympians are no more immune to Obama worship than any other segment of the population. You say “Mr. Obama was clearly trying to make fun of himself.” That’s for sure, by clearly comparing himself to special Olympians.
Did you have similar WSJ editorials chastising the ‘political correctness police’ for their lashing of misspelling ‘potato’ and mispronouncing ‘nuclear,’ neither remotely demeaning anyone other than the speaker?
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago 60640
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
If WSJ letters and op-eds ever bore you...
...try reading a news article.
Chicago Tuesday, March 17, 2009 11:22 AM
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
The Wall Street Journal's Monday, March 16 article "Small Business Loans Criticized" starts out "President Barack Obama is set to release a plan Monday raising the federal guarantee on small-business loans up to 90%..." and ends "...but a study by Congress's watchdog agency contends that insufficient oversight is in place for that program." This is a 37 word euphamism for: The president's found another nail for the Republican Party's coffin, and Congress says make sure you've got enough bureaucrats to do it.
Continuing: "The Small Business Administration... lends to small businesses that can't otherwise get credit, such as ...from private banks." And, the Presdident's plan "... will increase that guarantee... temporarily eliminate many of the loan fees that help pay for the program and cover potential defaults. And Mr. Obama on Monday will instruct the government to purchase small-business loans bundled and sold on the secondary market."
But, wait a minute: "Government watchdogs fear the potential for another debacle, similar to... the mortgage crisis, in which poorly documented loans were granted by mortgage brokers, then shuffled off to banks and hedge funds as securities. "By eliminating the upfront fees for banks and lenders while increasing guarantee levels, watchdogs say, the administration could be creating incentives for banks to rush credit out the door....
"'According to the GAO investigation, I think we have nothing more than a large, unregulated pot of money that lenders are going to scramble to get their hands on,' said one congressional investigator...."
Are the ever-so-sly WSJ suits test-driving a potential satire subsidiary on us here?
Note to the President: A Rush Limbaugh-like brite idea: why not have Congress make a simple change to paragraph 3402 of United States Code Title 26 — 'Internal Revenue Code' Subtitle C 'Employment taxes' Chapter 24 'Collection Of Income Tax At Source On Wages..." to exclude employers meeting the present definition of constituients of the Small Business Administration.
Um, Mr. Presdident, you don't think much of this idea? And you doubt Congress, even the Republicans, will either, since it will reduce federal income?
The small business creature will still be reporting to the employee how much they owe the federal government. You don't have confidence with the backbone of the working populace following the law and paying their fair share?
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Chicago Tuesday, March 17, 2009 11:22 AM
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
The Wall Street Journal's Monday, March 16 article "Small Business Loans Criticized" starts out "President Barack Obama is set to release a plan Monday raising the federal guarantee on small-business loans up to 90%..." and ends "...but a study by Congress's watchdog agency contends that insufficient oversight is in place for that program." This is a 37 word euphamism for: The president's found another nail for the Republican Party's coffin, and Congress says make sure you've got enough bureaucrats to do it.
Continuing: "The Small Business Administration... lends to small businesses that can't otherwise get credit, such as ...from private banks." And, the Presdident's plan "... will increase that guarantee... temporarily eliminate many of the loan fees that help pay for the program and cover potential defaults. And Mr. Obama on Monday will instruct the government to purchase small-business loans bundled and sold on the secondary market."
But, wait a minute: "Government watchdogs fear the potential for another debacle, similar to... the mortgage crisis, in which poorly documented loans were granted by mortgage brokers, then shuffled off to banks and hedge funds as securities. "By eliminating the upfront fees for banks and lenders while increasing guarantee levels, watchdogs say, the administration could be creating incentives for banks to rush credit out the door....
"'According to the GAO investigation, I think we have nothing more than a large, unregulated pot of money that lenders are going to scramble to get their hands on,' said one congressional investigator...."
Are the ever-so-sly WSJ suits test-driving a potential satire subsidiary on us here?
Note to the President: A Rush Limbaugh-like brite idea: why not have Congress make a simple change to paragraph 3402 of United States Code Title 26 — 'Internal Revenue Code' Subtitle C 'Employment taxes' Chapter 24 'Collection Of Income Tax At Source On Wages..." to exclude employers meeting the present definition of constituients of the Small Business Administration.
Um, Mr. Presdident, you don't think much of this idea? And you doubt Congress, even the Republicans, will either, since it will reduce federal income?
The small business creature will still be reporting to the employee how much they owe the federal government. You don't have confidence with the backbone of the working populace following the law and paying their fair share?
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Monday, March 16, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Rush Limbaugh "I hope Obama fails"
Sunday, March 15, 2009 8:03 PM
Chicago Tribune Voice of the people
Gentlepeople:
Charles Madigan's Sunday, March 15 commentary "The business of Rush Limbaugh" starts "It all started with Limbaugh's hoping aloud that President Barack Obama fails."
And that claim started out with statements on Rush's Friday, January 16 radio show. An online transcript describes his receiving a request "from a major American print publication: 'Dear Rush: For the Obama Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent... commentators... to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency....'
Rush's on air comment: "The premise is, what is your 'hope.' My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people... who say, 'we've got to give him a chance.' Why? They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000.... I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business... to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things.... "
"So I'm thinking of replying... 'Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails....
"I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: 'Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.' Somebody's gotta say it."
Later in the article, Madigan explains that "Limbaugh should take every chance he can get to bash away at the Obama administration and hold onto his audience...." After reading the above transcript, does Madigan still believe "keeping his audience" is what drives Rush Limbaugh?
Madigan continues, describing Rush Limbaugh's "product" as "very conservative opinion. But he is not a William F. Buckley conservative...." Beyond his immediate family, Rush Limbaugh's most often referenced and quoted heroes are Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley Jr. I never heard RWR or WFBJr say anything questionable about Rush, and I have heard Buckley speak very highly of Rush. There are a few writers on Buckley's magazine who recently have been less than flattering, but many more have come out in his strong defense. So Madigan's claim is no more than a wild guess.
But Madigan is full of wild guesses: "Limbaugh, perhaps the most successful broadcaster of the last two decades...."
Perhaps? Who is number two?
"Limbaugh's audience most likely trends toward an older demographic...."
"And who knows how many Limbaugh listeners are voters?"
No doubt about who people looking for something-for-nothing vote for.
"[A]ctual Republicans who have to carry the ball in Congress and in statehouses will never be able to keep up with [Rush's] rhetoric.
Rush often speaks on his show of his pride in a plaque naming him an honorary member of the 1995 Republican House of Representatives freshmen, thanking him for the help he gave them in taking over the House in 1994.
“Rush is ‘selling personality on air.’"
Since Obama brought not 5 minutes of executive, buck-stops-here experience to the office of president, what was he selling but "personality". At least Rush does it without a teleprompter.
Besides the title of this article, the word 'business' occurs 7 times, 5 referring to Rush Limbaugh. Would Mr. Madigan ever write about Barack Obama's business, which for his entire career has been applied 100% to getting out the vote for Democrat, left wing causes?
Madigan finally makes his major point, that "Limbaugh is about rhetoric, not reality...," which conveniently explains an earlier qualification that Madigan doesn't "listen to talk radio". If Madigan would listen to Rush Limbaugh for a couple hours some week, he would find 'rhetoric' is buried under tons of description and discussion of the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the principles put forth by our founders to encourage private initiative, and keep the government out of it. The down side is that you would also hear lots of description of forces out to destroy all of this by convincing the public they cannot do anything by themselves, but must have the watchful eye, and constant intervention of 500 all-but-life-time elected public officials in DC, riding on the back of a vast bureaucracy they no longer control, beyond helping them stay in office.
After a murky opening paragraph that appeared to do little more than get him off the ground, Madigan closes with "Everyone involved [in the Limbaugh 'flap'] ... is motivated by self-interest." Maybe it would be easier to understand if Madigan could name a single person in the world who is not "motivated by self interest."
Arnold H Nelson5056 North Marine DriveChicago IL 60640773-677-3010
Chicago Tribune Voice of the people
Gentlepeople:
Charles Madigan's Sunday, March 15 commentary "The business of Rush Limbaugh" starts "It all started with Limbaugh's hoping aloud that President Barack Obama fails."
And that claim started out with statements on Rush's Friday, January 16 radio show. An online transcript describes his receiving a request "from a major American print publication: 'Dear Rush: For the Obama Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent... commentators... to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency....'
Rush's on air comment: "The premise is, what is your 'hope.' My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people... who say, 'we've got to give him a chance.' Why? They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000.... I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business... to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things.... "
"So I'm thinking of replying... 'Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails....
"I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: 'Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.' Somebody's gotta say it."
Later in the article, Madigan explains that "Limbaugh should take every chance he can get to bash away at the Obama administration and hold onto his audience...." After reading the above transcript, does Madigan still believe "keeping his audience" is what drives Rush Limbaugh?
Madigan continues, describing Rush Limbaugh's "product" as "very conservative opinion. But he is not a William F. Buckley conservative...." Beyond his immediate family, Rush Limbaugh's most often referenced and quoted heroes are Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley Jr. I never heard RWR or WFBJr say anything questionable about Rush, and I have heard Buckley speak very highly of Rush. There are a few writers on Buckley's magazine who recently have been less than flattering, but many more have come out in his strong defense. So Madigan's claim is no more than a wild guess.
But Madigan is full of wild guesses: "Limbaugh, perhaps the most successful broadcaster of the last two decades...."
Perhaps? Who is number two?
"Limbaugh's audience most likely trends toward an older demographic...."
"And who knows how many Limbaugh listeners are voters?"
No doubt about who people looking for something-for-nothing vote for.
"[A]ctual Republicans who have to carry the ball in Congress and in statehouses will never be able to keep up with [Rush's] rhetoric.
Rush often speaks on his show of his pride in a plaque naming him an honorary member of the 1995 Republican House of Representatives freshmen, thanking him for the help he gave them in taking over the House in 1994.
“Rush is ‘selling personality on air.’"
Since Obama brought not 5 minutes of executive, buck-stops-here experience to the office of president, what was he selling but "personality". At least Rush does it without a teleprompter.
Besides the title of this article, the word 'business' occurs 7 times, 5 referring to Rush Limbaugh. Would Mr. Madigan ever write about Barack Obama's business, which for his entire career has been applied 100% to getting out the vote for Democrat, left wing causes?
Madigan finally makes his major point, that "Limbaugh is about rhetoric, not reality...," which conveniently explains an earlier qualification that Madigan doesn't "listen to talk radio". If Madigan would listen to Rush Limbaugh for a couple hours some week, he would find 'rhetoric' is buried under tons of description and discussion of the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the principles put forth by our founders to encourage private initiative, and keep the government out of it. The down side is that you would also hear lots of description of forces out to destroy all of this by convincing the public they cannot do anything by themselves, but must have the watchful eye, and constant intervention of 500 all-but-life-time elected public officials in DC, riding on the back of a vast bureaucracy they no longer control, beyond helping them stay in office.
After a murky opening paragraph that appeared to do little more than get him off the ground, Madigan closes with "Everyone involved [in the Limbaugh 'flap'] ... is motivated by self-interest." Maybe it would be easier to understand if Madigan could name a single person in the world who is not "motivated by self interest."
Arnold H Nelson5056 North Marine DriveChicago IL 60640773-677-3010
Friday, March 13, 2009
Another wishy-washy Republican...
...gets a letter printed in the WSJ (March 12, 2009):
"Daniel Henninger ('Has Obama Buried Reagan?,' Wonder Land, March 5) has one thing right: Republicans had better start talking about economic growth. But first they have to stop dithering and consorting with buffoons like Rush Limbaugh or threatening to go beyond the cutting edge and get really hip-hop.
"Maybe then they can join the conversation about growth that's already underway in many quarters -- not just within the Obama administration, but also in the private sector, which, Mr. Henninger claims, is the Republicans' political bailiwick.
"Hoping that the ghost of Ronald Reagan will offer, again, a way out of the darkness is also just bad political strategy. Many young voters (most of whom were Obama voters this time around) were born during President Reagan's second term. To them, 'Ronald Reagan' sounds a bit like 'William McKinley.'
"Sticking to conservative principles shouldn't rule out coming up with new ideas."
I responded:
Chicago Friday AM, March 13, 2009
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
The letter "Can't Live in the Past" in the Thursday, March 12 Wall Street Journal suggests the Republicans "... join the conversation about [economic] growth that's already underway... not just within the Obama administration. ..."
How did that 'just' get in there? The administration told everyone what they would do if they won, and since they did, the economy as grown by -$3 trillion in the private sector stock market alone.
The letter further suggests the Republicans "...stop dithering and consorting with buffoons like Rush Limbaugh". In politics, if an ally seems less than helpful, what does your real opposition think? Rush Limbaugh has the Democrats so befuddled, Republicans are lucky he still prefers them to Democrats.
The letter-writer doesn't think "the ghost of Ronald Reagan will offer... a way out of the darkness". So what have we had since RWR that's better? Another Republican who was no Reagan, but did win two elections. Then there was the guy who ran because "it was his turn," who then ignored the greatest political legacy of the 20th century, the two-year-old Contract with America. Then there was that guy last fall, effectively nominated by Democrats because of some weired "new ideas" in the Republican nominating process.
But even picking a VP partner someone with demonstrable executive experience (in contrast to himself and the opposing ticket) couldn't save him from his own incompetence.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
"Daniel Henninger ('Has Obama Buried Reagan?,' Wonder Land, March 5) has one thing right: Republicans had better start talking about economic growth. But first they have to stop dithering and consorting with buffoons like Rush Limbaugh or threatening to go beyond the cutting edge and get really hip-hop.
"Maybe then they can join the conversation about growth that's already underway in many quarters -- not just within the Obama administration, but also in the private sector, which, Mr. Henninger claims, is the Republicans' political bailiwick.
"Hoping that the ghost of Ronald Reagan will offer, again, a way out of the darkness is also just bad political strategy. Many young voters (most of whom were Obama voters this time around) were born during President Reagan's second term. To them, 'Ronald Reagan' sounds a bit like 'William McKinley.'
"Sticking to conservative principles shouldn't rule out coming up with new ideas."
I responded:
Chicago Friday AM, March 13, 2009
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
The letter "Can't Live in the Past" in the Thursday, March 12 Wall Street Journal suggests the Republicans "... join the conversation about [economic] growth that's already underway... not just within the Obama administration. ..."
How did that 'just' get in there? The administration told everyone what they would do if they won, and since they did, the economy as grown by -$3 trillion in the private sector stock market alone.
The letter further suggests the Republicans "...stop dithering and consorting with buffoons like Rush Limbaugh". In politics, if an ally seems less than helpful, what does your real opposition think? Rush Limbaugh has the Democrats so befuddled, Republicans are lucky he still prefers them to Democrats.
The letter-writer doesn't think "the ghost of Ronald Reagan will offer... a way out of the darkness". So what have we had since RWR that's better? Another Republican who was no Reagan, but did win two elections. Then there was the guy who ran because "it was his turn," who then ignored the greatest political legacy of the 20th century, the two-year-old Contract with America. Then there was that guy last fall, effectively nominated by Democrats because of some weired "new ideas" in the Republican nominating process.
But even picking a VP partner someone with demonstrable executive experience (in contrast to himself and the opposing ticket) couldn't save him from his own incompetence.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Saturday, March 7, 2009
The UK Financial Times is pretty good...
...when they talk about Bangkok, but they don't know beans about Rush Limbaugh:
Saturday, March 7, 2009 7:56 PM
Editors, UK Financial Times
Gentlepeople:
The Financial Times Friday, March 6, article “Man in the News“ on Rush Limbaugh is interesting and well written. Granting that "his audience contains a large share of people with college degrees..." and "Democrats... would be rash to underestimate his ability..." is refreshingly fair, especially considering he didn't reply to your e-mailed questions.
But there are points that are absolutely wrong. Rush's nickname for "James Carville, a leading Democratic consultant" is not "Forehead”, but "The Serpent". The Forehead is Paul Begalla, a Democrat political strategist, and California Congress creature Henry Waxman is nostrilitis" (look at pics of those three and you will see, cruel they may be, the nicknames could not be more descriptive.)
And Mr Obama is not the “Supreme Leader” - he is the Messiah, a nickname not particularly liked by many on the right. Saving the "best" for last, Rush did not call John Edwards, the “Bret Girl”; but yes "in honour of a shampoo advertisement" called him the "Breck" girl. And “ditto heads” is not a "disparaging name" Rush gives to his audience, but an honored trademark (he calls his in-studio video camera "the ditto cam.") As he has explained many times, it comes from the early days of his national show, many callers did indeed compliment him, so much so that many more started off with "dittos to that last caller". Those compliments were often expressly qualified with "but I don't agree with every thing you say."
And I assume that you are quoting "moderate Republicans" when you say "Parties do not get elected by heading into the wilderness...." Did Ronald Reagan head into the wilderness? George W Bush was a little weaker there than RWR, but not near as deep in the wilderness as his two opponents. You want to see real 'wilderness'? Look at the results of George HW, Bob Dole, and John McCain.
As far as Rush's callers phoning in to agree with everything he says, I remember in the Teri Schiavo disaster, he came in on Monday AM and took 3 1/2 days of "Pull the plug", and it sounded like Sammy Sosa batting practice. Every one out of the park, until the last hour Thursday, when he finally took a caller who agreed with him.
Your statement that Rush talks "in a distinctive American conservative style – angry about white victimhood...." would only carry weight if you could quote a single instance of Rush talking about "white victimhood." A single example of any American Conservative saying that could only help your credibility also.
You object to Rush saying the Obama presidency would “lead ineluctably to 'socialism', 'socialised medicine' and other original sins." I've always understood that Socialism is public ownership of all means of production. Obama is well on his way to taking over the banks and the home mortgage industry. The investor class lost $2 trillion from Obama's election to his inauguration, another $trillion since then. How long will it take before Obama declares "the country is too big to fail," and nationalizes the entire economy because no one else wants it? And if taking management of the health care sector away from local doctors, hospitals, and common-stock-owned health insurance companies, and giving it entirely to Washington DC bureaucrats isn't "socialised medicine", what is?
Edward Luce is a fine writer, certainly deserving of a high place in FT's outstanding group of writers. But it's questionable how many Rush Limbaugh shows he's listened to, or how many listeners he's talked with.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Saturday, March 7, 2009 7:56 PM
Editors, UK Financial Times
Gentlepeople:
The Financial Times Friday, March 6, article “Man in the News“ on Rush Limbaugh is interesting and well written. Granting that "his audience contains a large share of people with college degrees..." and "Democrats... would be rash to underestimate his ability..." is refreshingly fair, especially considering he didn't reply to your e-mailed questions.
But there are points that are absolutely wrong. Rush's nickname for "James Carville, a leading Democratic consultant" is not "Forehead”, but "The Serpent". The Forehead is Paul Begalla, a Democrat political strategist, and California Congress creature Henry Waxman is nostrilitis" (look at pics of those three and you will see, cruel they may be, the nicknames could not be more descriptive.)
And Mr Obama is not the “Supreme Leader” - he is the Messiah, a nickname not particularly liked by many on the right. Saving the "best" for last, Rush did not call John Edwards, the “Bret Girl”; but yes "in honour of a shampoo advertisement" called him the "Breck" girl. And “ditto heads” is not a "disparaging name" Rush gives to his audience, but an honored trademark (he calls his in-studio video camera "the ditto cam.") As he has explained many times, it comes from the early days of his national show, many callers did indeed compliment him, so much so that many more started off with "dittos to that last caller". Those compliments were often expressly qualified with "but I don't agree with every thing you say."
And I assume that you are quoting "moderate Republicans" when you say "Parties do not get elected by heading into the wilderness...." Did Ronald Reagan head into the wilderness? George W Bush was a little weaker there than RWR, but not near as deep in the wilderness as his two opponents. You want to see real 'wilderness'? Look at the results of George HW, Bob Dole, and John McCain.
As far as Rush's callers phoning in to agree with everything he says, I remember in the Teri Schiavo disaster, he came in on Monday AM and took 3 1/2 days of "Pull the plug", and it sounded like Sammy Sosa batting practice. Every one out of the park, until the last hour Thursday, when he finally took a caller who agreed with him.
Your statement that Rush talks "in a distinctive American conservative style – angry about white victimhood...." would only carry weight if you could quote a single instance of Rush talking about "white victimhood." A single example of any American Conservative saying that could only help your credibility also.
You object to Rush saying the Obama presidency would “lead ineluctably to 'socialism', 'socialised medicine' and other original sins." I've always understood that Socialism is public ownership of all means of production. Obama is well on his way to taking over the banks and the home mortgage industry. The investor class lost $2 trillion from Obama's election to his inauguration, another $trillion since then. How long will it take before Obama declares "the country is too big to fail," and nationalizes the entire economy because no one else wants it? And if taking management of the health care sector away from local doctors, hospitals, and common-stock-owned health insurance companies, and giving it entirely to Washington DC bureaucrats isn't "socialised medicine", what is?
Edward Luce is a fine writer, certainly deserving of a high place in FT's outstanding group of writers. But it's questionable how many Rush Limbaugh shows he's listened to, or how many listeners he's talked with.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
