Thursday, January 26, 2012

Letter to WSJ -Mitch Daniels should be ashamed of himself

Chicago Thursday PM 26 January 2012

Editors, The Wall Street Journal


The Wall Street Journal's 'Notable & Quotable' feature can have no better draw than quoting Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels. But the second sentence of the Thursday 26 January edition (“Medicare and Social Security have served us well, and that must continue.”)
indicates that Maybe Mrs Daniels (who allegedly nixed Mitch's try for the presidency) should be running for president.

Social Security is a lie and scam, no more than a tax on employers, and should be done away with.. Sure, way back in 1937, wage earners took a 1% hit, repeated every time there is an increase in the rate. But 99% of the time it is employers who are writing the checks and sending them into the treasury. If they don't they go to jail, never the wage earner. Since every employer must do this. there is no competitive reason to do anything but add it to the cost of their product. So all the money that goes to DC allegedly for SocSec is from a silent, painless national sales tax. According to the Statistical Abstract of the US this was 36% of all the taxes received by the federal government in 2010.

We have private sector corporations (Prudential, Massachusetts Mutual, Aetna, New York Life) who sell annuities, designed by actuaries, that customers can contribute to over their working careers and get fine pensions. These companies are successful because they take those contributions, accumulate them, invest them soundly in private companies that make things private citizens want and buy. Yes. They even invest in public projects such as infrastructure.

Compare this to SocSec and Medicare where even the illicitly labeled worker 'contributions' are 'invested' only in the general fund, which is the source of everything congress wants to support. SocSec 'benefits' also come from this fund, but equal only to the minimum necessary to keep voters believing they're getting something for nothing.

Whoever presents these facts is accused of wanting to push old people off a cliff. This is unnecessary since 2.5 % of the people who are already in it are dying every year. In 40 years they will all be gone and that problem will be solved. But we must stop pretending that it is a retirement system The Supreme Court has never been asked to determine it's constitutionality, but in its 1961 Fleming v Nestor decision did say it was not an annuity.

Arnold H Nelson

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Letter to NYTimes: Is federal tax code unfair?

Chicago PM Sunday 22 January 2012

Editors, The New York Times


The New York Times' editorial “The 1% and That 15%” (Wednesday 18 January) laments “the fundamental unfairness of the current tax code...” The biggest reason for this alleged unfairness is that it has been continually adjusted for nearly 90 years by Presidents and federal legislators, goaded by voters. And 90% of those voters opinions are distorted by the 1943 current tax payment act that dictated rather than being paid out of voters personal checking accounts, virtually all of it comes from employer bank accounts.

The 2012 Statistical Abstract of the United States says in 2010, 73% of gross US taxes collected were withheld from wage earners' pay. Since all employers must do this. there is no competitive reason to do anything other than add it to their product price. If that money doesn't get to Treasury, the employer goes to jail, never the wage earner. So more than 2/3 of all taxes received by the federal government come from a silent, painless national sales tax.

Even worse, 80 million wage earner voters have drawers full of pay stubs saying: “You earned and your employer paid” so they think the federal government owes them retirement income and medical care.

This needs neither a super committee nor a Constitutional amendment to fix, 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...."

Returning to voters the responsibility of writing personal checks to fund the government would force them to face how much all these entitlements cost, encouraging election of legislators less likely to support federal vote-buying giveaways.

Arnold H Nelson

Friday, January 20, 2012

Letter to Chicago Tribune; Are corporations people?

Chicago AM 20 January 2012

Chicago Tribune, Voice of the People:

The Chicago Tribune's columnist Jonah Goldberg on Thursday 19 January quotes Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens: "Corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires." What did Justice Stevens think the United States Constitution's first amendment meant by saying: “Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble...?” Are corporations anything other than people peaceably assembling?

Arnold H Nelson

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Letter to WSJ on Gingrich

Chicago Wednesday AM 18 January 2012

Editors, The Wall Street Journal


The Wall Street Journal's Kim Strassel uses a quarter of her Tuesday 17 January “Romney's Rivals Fizzle in South Carolina” OpEd noting Newt Gingrich's recent errors in pursu├»ng the Republican Presidential nomination (everything from “running... as an anticapitalist” thru “taping populist anger against wealthy Americans.”) Did she have a particular reason for not noting he balanced four straight federal budgets, and the fact that if it hadn't been for him, we would be entering our 58th straight year of a Democrat owned House of Representatives.

Considering the previous evening was a major debate she could also have noted that Mr Gingrich made the final point of that debate, with what could easily be the best point made in all the debates. Responding to a twitter asking what he thought of 'No Child Left behind' he said: “I think it’s clearly a failure...,I find virtually no teacher who likes it....
the correct answer is to radically reduce the Department of Education... return the money and the power back home to the states.”

The best things the federal government ever did for education were the first two: The 1745 Land Use act which reserved 1/36 of all public land for local schools, and the 1862 Morrill act, again dedicating public land for use in establishing our State College system. Note that both of these federal actions were endowments of resources the federal government owned, not involving a tax of any kind.

Arnold H Nelson