Letter to WSJ on Chicago's 'broad shoulders'

Chicago Sunday PM 23 Janary 2011

Editors, The Wall Street Journal

Gentlepeople:

The first sentence of the fourth paragraph of a 21 August 1996 Wall Street Journal article about Chicago (the site of the Democrat convention that year ) said “the City of Broad Shoulders managed to broaden its appeal over the past quarter century.” Twenty-seven days later you printed a letter pointing out that the great American poet and Lincoln Biographer Carl Sandburgh called it the 'City of the Big Shoulders,' in his 1916 poem 'Chicago.'

Now in an otherwise fine article about the upcoming title game between the Chicago Bears and the Green Bay Packers we read: “Green Bay's shoulders might not be as broad as Chicago's, but both are Midwestern cities built long ago on paper making and meat packing....”

If you send me the address of the WSJ staff reference library I will be happy to send a fresh, new copy of Sandburg's book “Chicago poems”. You're on your own for the Lincoln Bio.

Arnold H Nelson in Chicago

Letter to NYTmes Sunday Magazine...

... on vanquishing unemployment.

The New York Times Magazine of 23 January has an article headlined: "The White

House economic team is acutely aware that everything the administration dreams

of accomplishing rides on vanquishing unemployment. And doing it on the cheap.

Ideas, anyone?"

How about repealing the federal minimum wage?

Arnold H Nelson

Letter to WSJ BestOfTheWebToday on Sarah Palin

Are you setting the 'presidential timber ' bar a little high? Thursday, January 20, 2011 9:42 AM The BOTWT Wednesday 19 January has a fine defense of Sarah Palin, but it opens with your statement you “...are inclined to think that she is not...” presidential timber. You then quote friend “Jessica Faller, a New Yorker in her 30s of generally liberal politics” who implies Palin has less than a “a tremendous, watertight political résumé.” The number one requirement of a president it to make final decisions, and governors and generals have the most background at this. Only six of the last 13 presidents have been governors, and two of those were one-term – a little more than twice as long as Palin. Her state is the fourth smallest in population, but largest in area by a factor of two. It is number two in petroleum production, and number seven in natural gas reserves. Palin was chairman of its oil and gas commssion for a year before becoming governor. One asian country (not Russia) appears to be activly developing nuclear weapons, and means of using them against the United states. The path of any missile of this country aimed for any point of the lower 48 passes over Alaska, a point recognized by the Defense department, requireing regular, if not public, communication bewtween them and the governor of Alaska (thankfully not Lisa Mejeski.) Another six of those 13 recent presidents have got no further than serving in Congress or being vice president, a black mark refreshingly absent from Palin. A welcome attribute of presidents and presidential candidates is endorsing and campaining for other politicians, assistance welcomed from Palin by a dozen successful candidates across the country in the recent embarassment of the opposing party. In 2008 I don't remember a whole lot of Republicans asking for McCain's help. Did Mitch Daniels make a difference for any candidate in 2010? I seem to remember when Palin made her first televised speech after getting the VP nod her teleprompter malfunctioning, but I missed the plaintive "can someone fix the teleprompter?' plus any apparent break in her delivery. Arn Nelson in Chicago

Letter to NYTimes explaining Federal unenployment benefits...

Chicago Tuesday AM 4 January 2011

Editors, The New York Tmes

Gentlepeople:

The New York Times editotrial 'Deficit Hypocrisy' of 29 December opens accusing Republicans of “holding unemployment benefits hostage.” Federal unemployment benefits come from a tax on employers, allegedly deposited in a sinking fund to be used to smooth out periods of higher unemployment. Since the so-called sinking fund is emty, Republicans only think it's fair to take money away from other spemding to extend benefits. Democrats, of course, want to kep buying the votes of the unemplloyed for as long as it takes to keep the Democrats in office.

Further, the editorial refers to “pay-as-you-go rules adopted by Democratic majorities in the House and Senate in 2007...” These rules were allegedly implemented to end the outrageous $20 billion average monthly deficits racked up by President Bush and the Republican Congress, but actually raised that monthly average deficit to $35 billion. Continued enforcement of those pay-go rules under a Democrat President raised that monthly average to $135 billion.

The editorial concludes this subject: “The new Republican rules will gut pay-as-you-go....” If gutting Democrat pay-go got us back to the Bush/Republican $20 billion monthly average deficit it would be a gutting well worth the effort.

The editorial uses the word 'tax' 16 times. Taxes are the sole source of Federal government income. The 2010 Statistical Abstract of the US shows in 2008, 2/3 of total federal government income of $2.745 trillion came from employer bank accounts as withheld wages and social security, not from individual voter bank accounts. Since all employers must do this, there is no competitive reason not to pass this cost to customers in higher prices, silently converting income taxes to a national sales tax.

Fixing this scam needs only a majority of the House of reps, 60 Senators, and a President with backbone enough to change the US Tax code 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...."

Requiring voters to send in a check for 20% of their take home pay every month would quickly demonstrate to them who they shold elect to Federal office.

Arnold H Nelson