Friday, May 22, 2009 7:59 PM
To: "Maureen Ryan" @ChicagoTribune.com
Ms. Ryan, your article about Manitowoc submarines in the Friday, May 22 Chicago Tribune was well written and interesting. There were certainly dozens of subs built in Manitowoc during WWII - two dozen, plus four - a total of 28 submarines, according to the Manitowoc Maritime Museum. One of those subs is tied up at their dock.
A sub commander, Edward L Beach wrote a really great book about WWII sub warfare, 'Run Silent Run Deep', subsequently made into a very good B&W movie featuring Clark Gable and Burt Lancaster. The story is about a commander losing his sub to a Japanese destroyer, but surviving, and able to get a new sub - from Manitowoc WI. The book even tells of the commander going to Manitowoc to get it, and testing it out in Lake Michigan.
A point made in the book is that Manitowoc subs were highly thot of by submariners, one reason being that instead of being built on 'ways' like a regular ship, they were built on a spit (very large) so they could be rotated, resulting in all welds being 'top side'.
Keep up the good work.
Arn Nelson at Foster Beach
Friday, May 22, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
Chicago Tribune on Obama and Corporate Income Taxes
Chicago AM Monday, May 18, 2009
Voice of the People, Chicago Tribune
Gentlepeople:
Your editorial of Saturday, May 9 "A bad tax idea" made good points about President IBM's lack of understanding of the relationship of foreign trade and corporate income taxes. The US Commerce Department's 2009 Statistical Abstract of the US has an interesting figure on this subject: Of the total Federal income of $2.692 trillion in 2007 (the latest year given), only $396 billion (14.7%) came from corporate income taxes.
A maybe even more significant figure from the Abstract is that 62% of that total federal income was withheld from employee wages, so nearly 2/3 of the actual dollars that came into the general fund were from employer bank accounts (even though it is strongly implied that if this money was not with held, employers would have given it to employees as wages.)
Of course, employers pass all of this on to customers in higher prices, resulting in almost 2/3 of federal income coming from a near invisible national sales tax. This has been going on since the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, but because of a regularly expanding national economy, it's all but painless to voters, resulting in their lack of interest in what Congress does with all that money.
This problem could be fixed by 218 house members, 60 Senators, and an agreeable president changing paragraph 3402 of USC 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...." leaving the tax calculation with the employer but insisting that she also send a stern note telling the employee how much the feds are expecting him to send in within 30 days.
Would this be inefficient? Certainly for an insatiable federal bureaucracy. But it should also make voters a lot more interested in who they send to Congress.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago 60640
[Don't worry - if they had printed it, I would tell you.]
Voice of the People, Chicago Tribune
Gentlepeople:
Your editorial of Saturday, May 9 "A bad tax idea" made good points about President IBM's lack of understanding of the relationship of foreign trade and corporate income taxes. The US Commerce Department's 2009 Statistical Abstract of the US has an interesting figure on this subject: Of the total Federal income of $2.692 trillion in 2007 (the latest year given), only $396 billion (14.7%) came from corporate income taxes.
A maybe even more significant figure from the Abstract is that 62% of that total federal income was withheld from employee wages, so nearly 2/3 of the actual dollars that came into the general fund were from employer bank accounts (even though it is strongly implied that if this money was not with held, employers would have given it to employees as wages.)
Of course, employers pass all of this on to customers in higher prices, resulting in almost 2/3 of federal income coming from a near invisible national sales tax. This has been going on since the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, but because of a regularly expanding national economy, it's all but painless to voters, resulting in their lack of interest in what Congress does with all that money.
This problem could be fixed by 218 house members, 60 Senators, and an agreeable president changing paragraph 3402 of USC 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...." leaving the tax calculation with the employer but insisting that she also send a stern note telling the employee how much the feds are expecting him to send in within 30 days.
Would this be inefficient? Certainly for an insatiable federal bureaucracy. But it should also make voters a lot more interested in who they send to Congress.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago 60640
[Don't worry - if they had printed it, I would tell you.]
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Rachman in UK Financial Times : WMDs did not exist?
Chicago Tuesday AM 12 May, 2009
Editors, Financial Times
Gentlepeople:
In his Sunday, May 10 book review "A tale of two conflicts with Iraq" Gideon Rachman writes "The second Gulf war was ... fought to pre-empt a threat of attack from weapons of mass destruction that turned out not to exist."
That statement is not provable. All that's been proven is that when we looked in certain places we thot they had been. they weren't there anymore. Unfortunately the only thing that could be proved is if they are dropped on a population center's doorstep sometime, then they did exist, we just didn't know where.
What's important is the US Congress' thots when they passed House Senate Joint Congressional Resolution of October 10, 2002 for "Use of Military Force Against Iraq." Its 1300 words contain 22 statements justifying invading Iraq , including the words 'September 11, 2001' (5 times,) 'nuclear' (4 times,)'al Quaida' once, and 'weapons of mass destruction' (7 times.) This resolution was passed by 2/3 majorities of both houses of Congress (2/3 of Senate Democrats, too.)
Even though the US Congress had not seen such weapons with their own eyes, thot the possibility of their existence high enough to justify recommending the President invade, and most important, paid for that invasion.
The international press throws more than enough conventional wisdom. It is unfortunate that a Financial Times commentator would feel the need to add to it.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North marine Drive Chicago IL 60640 USA
Editors, Financial Times
Gentlepeople:
In his Sunday, May 10 book review "A tale of two conflicts with Iraq" Gideon Rachman writes "The second Gulf war was ... fought to pre-empt a threat of attack from weapons of mass destruction that turned out not to exist."
That statement is not provable. All that's been proven is that when we looked in certain places we thot they had been. they weren't there anymore. Unfortunately the only thing that could be proved is if they are dropped on a population center's doorstep sometime, then they did exist, we just didn't know where.
What's important is the US Congress' thots when they passed House Senate Joint Congressional Resolution of October 10, 2002 for "Use of Military Force Against Iraq." Its 1300 words contain 22 statements justifying invading Iraq , including the words 'September 11, 2001' (5 times,) 'nuclear' (4 times,)'al Quaida' once, and 'weapons of mass destruction' (7 times.) This resolution was passed by 2/3 majorities of both houses of Congress (2/3 of Senate Democrats, too.)
Even though the US Congress had not seen such weapons with their own eyes, thot the possibility of their existence high enough to justify recommending the President invade, and most important, paid for that invasion.
The international press throws more than enough conventional wisdom. It is unfortunate that a Financial Times commentator would feel the need to add to it.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North marine Drive Chicago IL 60640 USA
New York Times on health insurance
Chicago Wednesday AM May 13, 2009
Editors, the New York Times
Gentlepeople:
The New York Times' Tuesday, May 12 editorial "A Moderate Plan for Health Care" talks of "private insurers concerned about profit margins" who "need to generate profits", subjects the Times can certainly speak authoritatively about. Just ask anyone involved with the Boston Globe about the Times concern with its own profit margins and need to generate profits.
The editorial speaks further of "Private plans" who "mostly pass rising ... costs on to the subscriber." And who is more ready to pass their rising costs on to their subscribers?
The editorial also mentions "people who don’t trust private insurers to have their best interest at heart." Maybe the Boston Globe unions could describe whose interests the Times has at heart.
As with any good editorial, the best is saved for last: "It should be possible to design a system... without destroying the private coverage that most Americans have.... The question is whether Republicans in Congress are willing to try."
Since the Democrats have more than comfortable majorities in both houses of Congress, and a President just itching to take over as much of the private sector as he can, why the worry of what the Republicans are willing to try?
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Editors, the New York Times
Gentlepeople:
The New York Times' Tuesday, May 12 editorial "A Moderate Plan for Health Care" talks of "private insurers concerned about profit margins" who "need to generate profits", subjects the Times can certainly speak authoritatively about. Just ask anyone involved with the Boston Globe about the Times concern with its own profit margins and need to generate profits.
The editorial speaks further of "Private plans" who "mostly pass rising ... costs on to the subscriber." And who is more ready to pass their rising costs on to their subscribers?
The editorial also mentions "people who don’t trust private insurers to have their best interest at heart." Maybe the Boston Globe unions could describe whose interests the Times has at heart.
As with any good editorial, the best is saved for last: "It should be possible to design a system... without destroying the private coverage that most Americans have.... The question is whether Republicans in Congress are willing to try."
Since the Democrats have more than comfortable majorities in both houses of Congress, and a President just itching to take over as much of the private sector as he can, why the worry of what the Republicans are willing to try?
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Thursday, May 7, 2009
WSJ Filibuster-proof majority?
Chicago Thursday PM, May 7, 2009
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
Daniel Henninger is as good a political writer as any, but why does he waste even eight words to "...giving the Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate majority." ("Should the GOP Forget Reagan?" Thursday, May 7.) Filibuster/cloture is a Senate 'rule of proceeding', and as such, can be set/changed/eliminated anytime 50 senators and a vice president agree to it. The Republicans couldn't do it even to formalize a long tradition of not filibustering judicial nominations. But it would take Democrats only seconds, depending on how much they have to gain from it.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
Daniel Henninger is as good a political writer as any, but why does he waste even eight words to "...giving the Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate majority." ("Should the GOP Forget Reagan?" Thursday, May 7.) Filibuster/cloture is a Senate 'rule of proceeding', and as such, can be set/changed/eliminated anytime 50 senators and a vice president agree to it. The Republicans couldn't do it even to formalize a long tradition of not filibustering judicial nominations. But it would take Democrats only seconds, depending on how much they have to gain from it.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Monday, May 4, 2009
Response to GWB hater letter in Chicago Tribune
Chicago PM Monday 4 May 2009
Voice of the People, Chicago Tribune
Gentlepeople:
A letter in the Monday, May 4 Chicago Tribune "Americans' rights" says "we elected a president [in 2000 and 2004] who chose to involve us in a war in Iraq.... to satisfy the insecurities and arrogance of a man ill-equipped to handle the job the voters of this country gave to him."
The writer apparently has not read House Senate Joint Congressional Resolution of October 10, 2002 for "Use of Military Force Against Iraq." Its 1300 words (less than the two editorials and five other letters on this editorial page) contain 22 statements justifying invading Iraq, including the words 'weapons of mass destruction' (6 times,) 'September 11, 2001' (5 times,) 'nuclear' (4 times) and 'al Quaida' once. (Curiously, it does not contain the word 'oil'.) This resolution was passed by 2/3 majorities of both houses of Congress (2/3 of Senate Democrats, too.)
As for President Bush being "ill-equipped to handle the job the voters of this country gave to him" before becoming President he managed a private-sector business with a $60 million payroll for 5 years, then was elected Governor of the nation's second largest state (with a 1500 mile international border,) and reelected by a 2 to 1 majority. Compare this to the present occupant, whose largest payroll ever met was baby-sitter fees, whose international experience was five crucial pre-teen years slogging thru the mud of Indonesia, and governmental experience eight years as an Illinois State Senator, a job requiring no more skill than a Chicago Bears third-string jock strap attendant, but without the responsibility.
Arrogance comparison is left as an exercise for the reader. Insecurities? Watch their non-teleprompter enhanced performance.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago 60640
Voice of the People, Chicago Tribune
Gentlepeople:
A letter in the Monday, May 4 Chicago Tribune "Americans' rights" says "we elected a president [in 2000 and 2004] who chose to involve us in a war in Iraq.... to satisfy the insecurities and arrogance of a man ill-equipped to handle the job the voters of this country gave to him."
The writer apparently has not read House Senate Joint Congressional Resolution of October 10, 2002 for "Use of Military Force Against Iraq." Its 1300 words (less than the two editorials and five other letters on this editorial page) contain 22 statements justifying invading Iraq, including the words 'weapons of mass destruction' (6 times,) 'September 11, 2001' (5 times,) 'nuclear' (4 times) and 'al Quaida' once. (Curiously, it does not contain the word 'oil'.) This resolution was passed by 2/3 majorities of both houses of Congress (2/3 of Senate Democrats, too.)
As for President Bush being "ill-equipped to handle the job the voters of this country gave to him" before becoming President he managed a private-sector business with a $60 million payroll for 5 years, then was elected Governor of the nation's second largest state (with a 1500 mile international border,) and reelected by a 2 to 1 majority. Compare this to the present occupant, whose largest payroll ever met was baby-sitter fees, whose international experience was five crucial pre-teen years slogging thru the mud of Indonesia, and governmental experience eight years as an Illinois State Senator, a job requiring no more skill than a Chicago Bears third-string jock strap attendant, but without the responsibility.
Arrogance comparison is left as an exercise for the reader. Insecurities? Watch their non-teleprompter enhanced performance.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago 60640
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Randy Barnett in WSJ on Federalism Amendment
Chicago Saturday PM May 2 2009
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
Mr. Randy Barnett starts his Thursday, April 23 article "The Case for a Federalism Amendment" by pointing out how "hundreds of 'tea party' rallies around the country" are a strong indication of public distaste for "an unprecedented expansion of federal power...." Barnett proposes a "Federalism Amendment" to the US Constitution to stop this.
A better solution may be found by first looking upstream of the problem, specifically, The 2009 Statistical Abstract of the US which says, in 2007, 65% of all federal income came from employer-withheld taxes. This is the scam where the employer must send a tax check to the feds every month based on the number of employees he has, but is also forced to give the employee a written statement saying that if the employer were not so taxed, he would be giving the money to the employee.
Unhappy as the employer may be with this inconvenient truth, he can pass on the entire expense to customers as higher prices. So 65% of the entire federal income is actually a sales tax, silently, near-painlessly, being extracted from the soft underbelly of a regularly expanding US economy.
This problem could be fixed without a Constitutional Amendment, but by 218 house members, 60 Senators, and an agreeable president changing paragraph 3402 of USC 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...." leaving the tax calculation with the employer but insisting that a stern note telling the employee how much the feds are expecting him to send in within 30 days accompany the paycheck.
This could not be done overnite, but even implementing it on the entire alphabetic list of US citizens, one letter at a time, in 26 months you would have the entire electorate sending in checks from their personal checking accounts for twenty per cent of their pay to the feds every month. This would cause an abrupt change in voters' preferences for congress creatures supporting "expansion of federal power" to supporters of significantly cutting federal spending and the tax rate.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
Mr. Randy Barnett starts his Thursday, April 23 article "The Case for a Federalism Amendment" by pointing out how "hundreds of 'tea party' rallies around the country" are a strong indication of public distaste for "an unprecedented expansion of federal power...." Barnett proposes a "Federalism Amendment" to the US Constitution to stop this.
A better solution may be found by first looking upstream of the problem, specifically, The 2009 Statistical Abstract of the US which says, in 2007, 65% of all federal income came from employer-withheld taxes. This is the scam where the employer must send a tax check to the feds every month based on the number of employees he has, but is also forced to give the employee a written statement saying that if the employer were not so taxed, he would be giving the money to the employee.
Unhappy as the employer may be with this inconvenient truth, he can pass on the entire expense to customers as higher prices. So 65% of the entire federal income is actually a sales tax, silently, near-painlessly, being extracted from the soft underbelly of a regularly expanding US economy.
This problem could be fixed without a Constitutional Amendment, but by 218 house members, 60 Senators, and an agreeable president changing paragraph 3402 of USC 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...." leaving the tax calculation with the employer but insisting that a stern note telling the employee how much the feds are expecting him to send in within 30 days accompany the paycheck.
This could not be done overnite, but even implementing it on the entire alphabetic list of US citizens, one letter at a time, in 26 months you would have the entire electorate sending in checks from their personal checking accounts for twenty per cent of their pay to the feds every month. This would cause an abrupt change in voters' preferences for congress creatures supporting "expansion of federal power" to supporters of significantly cutting federal spending and the tax rate.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
