...they'll nail you for speeding, DWI, and DUI . But "ordinary" negligence or "inadvertence alone"? you're home free.
Chicago Tribune Wednesday, July 4, 2007:
"No charges in fatal crash - 'Inattentive' driver's actions not criminal, Indiana prosecutor says
"ELKHART, Ind. -- The ... truck driver who plowed his semitrailer into a line of vehicles on the Indiana Toll Road in April, killing eight people, won't be criminally charged in their deaths, Indiana prosecutors said Tuesday.
"Leonardo Cooksey, 32, was trying to charge his cell phone while driving and didn't see the traffic stopped in front of him until it was too late, said Elkhart County Prosecuting Attorney Curtis Hill.....
"'Mr. Cooksey's conduct was inattentive driving, not speeding, not driving while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol or drugs,' Hill said. 'Inadvertence alone, while an indication of negligent conduct, does not rise to the level of criminal liability, notwithstanding a catastrophic result.'
[And killing 8 people on the toll road is hardly 'catastrophic' in Indiana, is it. Mr. Prosecutor?]
"Cooksey told police that his cell phone had beeped a low-battery warning and he was fiddling with the charger....
"Lawyers in Illinois said the case's outcome likely would have been the same in Illinois, because Cooksey's actions, while unfortunate, did not constitute recklessness...."
[A midwestern thing?]
Read all 680 words at:
"http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-crashjul04,1,1782171.story?coll=chi-news-hed
Arn Nelson in Chicago
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Someone who thinks w/holding is legit....
Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 22:37:35 -0700 (PDT) From: "Arnold Nelson" Subject: Re: Re:WSJ editorial of Thursday, May 24, 2007 To: "Bob, thanks so much for your clear and thotful response to my WSJ letter. I hardly meet another conservative in a month, so it's nice to get it in writing that I'm not going completely off the track, on top of getting lots of stuff I never knew.. I blind copied in about a dozen hard core righty friends to that note, and also the TownHall Meetup Yahoo groups, a sort of blog here in Chicago, which probably has a dozen regular responders. From all of those recips, I got one note from someone objecting to my Social Security/withholdoing tax opinions: "I'm having a problem following your logic on 'No wage earner has ever paid a penny in Social Security Taxes.' I personally pay about $x,xxx per year in Social Security taxes. Yes, my company sends the money in, but they are sending money they withheld from me. The company does add a corresponding amount on top of what they have withheld from me. But make no mistake, I do pay Social Security taxes." and "As for income taxes, I pay well over $Xk per year. Again, the company writes the check that goes to the government, but it's money they have withheld from me. And in this case there is no matching amount on top; it's just my money. The alternative is for me to underwithhold (claim exemptions to which I am not entitled, for instance) to the point where nothing is withheld on my behalf and then the company would send in no $ with my name on them. It would then be up to me to make this up by April 15." The person that wrote that has considerably more credentials than I have in this area, but that point about 'underreporting' and paying up at the end of the year has not been true since at least 1985. If you're a wage earner, and you try to not have any taxes deducted, they're gonna do it anyway, and if at the end of the year, that refund gets too big, they'll penalize you (the wage earner) for underdeducting.Claiming "exemptions which you are not entitled" will get you a stiff penalty from the IRS, I'm sure. Bob, I was about ten years old when my Mother told me "Social Security is just a tax." It's only the last dozen years or so that I caught on to exactly what she was saying. But I lose friends when I explain this. A woman living in my building, recently retired, went just short of berserk: "That's my money, I paid in!" This is not even getting into the facts that as soon as the Feds started getting those checks from the employers in 1935, they immediately spent it on some hare-brained scheme or other (religiously depositing a 'bond' in some fund somehwere, whcih said "The citizens of the US will pay, in 20xx, the sum of....") And a local talk show hostess, Teri O'Brien (recovering attorney) has said more than once that there were two USSC decisions in the late 1930s that said no one has any clain at all on any of that money. So I know you're real busy, but I sure would appreciate your thots on this - I just find it hard to believe that only one person out of 20 who got that note does not accept my points. (Obviously, I didn't expect anything from the Journal, but that blog has more than its share of crabs, who pile on me all over the place on other items.) If that "it's my money" argument meant anything to them, they would have sent me similar notes. Arnie Nelson, on the Democrat-occupied west bank of Lake Michigan (Illinois 9th CD, repped by Nancy Pelosi's evil twin, Jan Schakowsky) PS Do you know Father Sirico (sp?) at the Acton Institute? I heard him w/ Walter Williams on Rush fillin last year and sent him (Fr) an email - I got a gracious response and a free sub to all their stuff. I stopped in their offices in Grand Rapids on March 27 (very nice)but was told (quite warmly) that they're lucky if he shows up once a month.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Illegal immigrnt/wholding exchange w/ big time lawyer
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 08:32:42 -0700 (PDT) From: "Arnold Nelson" Subject: Re: THConservatives - "I don't see why employees.... To: You're always worth reading, K, but this was just great! I do think the basic problem is the withholding tax system. The biggest single group of voters is wage earners (certainly not including the self-enployed) and most of them have never written a check for income taxes in their life. In fact, they are encouraged to make the employer pay more than necessary, and surprise! The wage earner gets the difference, in a nice little 'refund' check! As a result, most voters could care less about what our legslators do, especially if it looks like they're trying to throw a freebie to the public. If every taxpayer was forced to write a check directly to the federal government weekly, monthly, yearly, whatever, we'd see government shrink like a snowdrift in July. It couldn't be done overnite, but phased in (or out, as is this case) over 5-10 years it would change the country as much as this immigration baloney, but in the opposite direction! Who knows we might even see a strong movement for the repeal of the 16th amendment.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Another illegal immigration nasty to WSJ
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 17:42:01 -0700 (PDT) From: "Arnold Nelson" Subject: WSJ editorial of Thursday, May 24, 2007 To: "WSJ Letters" <wsj.ltrs@wsj.com>
Forty years of reading The Wall Street Journal has convinced me that you have the finest newspaper in the United States. The philosophies behind virtually all your editorials are a big reason for this opinion. So it is really depressing to see you go editorially berserk on illegal immigration, as these items from your Thursday, May 24, 2007 editorial: "Immigration and Welfare ".... In most cases immigrants will pay at least as much in lifetime federal taxes as they receive in benefits. "... most immigrants contribute payroll taxes for decades before they collect Social Security or Medicare benefits...." No wage earner (obviously not including the self-employed) has ever paid a penny in Social Security taxes. That monthly check representing his 'contribution' has been written on the employer bank account since inception in 1935 - that is, a tax on employers for each person they employ. Starting in 1943, the same is true to considerable extent to withheld employee income taxes. The employer is the one who writes the check every month to the Feds. If that check's not in the mail, it's the employer who could get jail, never the employee. Maybe in the beginning, the employee needed to cough up a little out of his own pocket at tax day, but that is more than made up for by the trick finally taught to the great majority of wage earners: deduct more than is due, so they get a 'refund' at the end of the year. So the employer must send in a bigger check (higher tax) but the employee gets the difference. "... immigrants who receive paychecks have their income taxes withheld...." Is there an echo in here? "Perhaps most important, immigrant earnings and tax payments rise the longer they are here.... Those earnings wouldn't be increasing if most immigrants were going on the dole. They are instead assimilating into the work force, growing their incomes as their skills increase." Hej, WSJ: Ever hear of welfare queens? Two more howlers: "Many of the Congressional proposals to legalize this population would not allow these workers to collect welfare until waiting up to eight years for a green card and five years after that." 'Many' of the proposals...? That means plenty of them WOULD allow illegals to collect welfare.... Waiting 'up to' eight years? Heck, waiting five minutes is 'up to' eight years. Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Forty years of reading The Wall Street Journal has convinced me that you have the finest newspaper in the United States. The philosophies behind virtually all your editorials are a big reason for this opinion. So it is really depressing to see you go editorially berserk on illegal immigration, as these items from your Thursday, May 24, 2007 editorial: "Immigration and Welfare ".... In most cases immigrants will pay at least as much in lifetime federal taxes as they receive in benefits. "... most immigrants contribute payroll taxes for decades before they collect Social Security or Medicare benefits...." No wage earner (obviously not including the self-employed) has ever paid a penny in Social Security taxes. That monthly check representing his 'contribution' has been written on the employer bank account since inception in 1935 - that is, a tax on employers for each person they employ. Starting in 1943, the same is true to considerable extent to withheld employee income taxes. The employer is the one who writes the check every month to the Feds. If that check's not in the mail, it's the employer who could get jail, never the employee. Maybe in the beginning, the employee needed to cough up a little out of his own pocket at tax day, but that is more than made up for by the trick finally taught to the great majority of wage earners: deduct more than is due, so they get a 'refund' at the end of the year. So the employer must send in a bigger check (higher tax) but the employee gets the difference. "... immigrants who receive paychecks have their income taxes withheld...." Is there an echo in here? "Perhaps most important, immigrant earnings and tax payments rise the longer they are here.... Those earnings wouldn't be increasing if most immigrants were going on the dole. They are instead assimilating into the work force, growing their incomes as their skills increase." Hej, WSJ: Ever hear of welfare queens? Two more howlers: "Many of the Congressional proposals to legalize this population would not allow these workers to collect welfare until waiting up to eight years for a green card and five years after that." 'Many' of the proposals...? That means plenty of them WOULD allow illegals to collect welfare.... Waiting 'up to' eight years? Heck, waiting five minutes is 'up to' eight years. Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Sunday, April 29, 2007
To John Derbyshire on withholding tax
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 04:30:09 -0700 (PDT) From: "Arnold Nelson" Subject: John, before the VT disaster, you had some CornerPosts... To: "John Derbyshire"
...on the withholding tax. I hope you pickup on it again - it was great! When I was being still sitting on my mother's lap 72 years ago, I'm sure she was bellyaching about it. I think somewhere I'd seen the Milton Friedman angle, but thanks for reminding me - I had not heard the Rose part, but that was even better. I think this all started with the Social Security 'deduction' in 1935, and to this day, I don't think a single non-self-employed wage earner has ever written a check to the Feds to cover their 'share'. It's nothing but a tax on employers, the 'deduction' part is the biggest scam ever pulled. The big test is: if that employer's check doesn't show up at the Feds, the employer goes to jail, never the employee. Of course, when that check cleared, the money was immediately spent on current expenses, and some obscure bond was issued somewhere, saying: "Future US taxpayers promise to pay...." We have a talk show hostess here in Chicago, Teri O'Brien (temporarily off the air, unfortunately) a recovering attorney, who often points out there are two Supreme Court decisions from the late '30s that say the people who got the pay stubs have not a shred of claim on those bonds. I wonder, did Milton think up the original SSoc joke, or did he just discover how easy it would be to apply it to general taxes? Whatever, now we have the even more monstrous problem that the average NSE wage earner doesn't really give a damn about how high taxes go, since again, if that FedTax 'deduction' doesn't show up at the Federal Treasury, it's the employer who goes to jail, never the employee. The so-called taxpayer may jabber a lot about how 'that's his money', but even if he need not worry about going to jail if his 'contribution' doesn't make it to the Feds, he can get big trouble trying to write checks on his gross. So he has a strong inclination to vote for those who promise the hand-outs, and not the people who might suggest lowering taxes on the employers. And the employer? Just another expense - he could hire more people if it was lower, but there's just not enough of them voting. Then, just to prove every scam can be improved, there's the 'refund'.You can force your employer to pay even more than your 'share', and at the end of the year, we'll give it to you! This is even better than the fundamental precept of the banking industry: "You give us all of your money, and maybe we'll give you some back." That may be hyperbolic, but I worked for a bank for 13 years, and sometimes I got the feeling that was their ultimate, if unattainable, goal. I know you know all this, but it's so rarely discussed, it was refreshing to read your posts - I hope you can do it some more. Arn Nelson in Chicago
...on the withholding tax. I hope you pickup on it again - it was great! When I was being still sitting on my mother's lap 72 years ago, I'm sure she was bellyaching about it. I think somewhere I'd seen the Milton Friedman angle, but thanks for reminding me - I had not heard the Rose part, but that was even better. I think this all started with the Social Security 'deduction' in 1935, and to this day, I don't think a single non-self-employed wage earner has ever written a check to the Feds to cover their 'share'. It's nothing but a tax on employers, the 'deduction' part is the biggest scam ever pulled. The big test is: if that employer's check doesn't show up at the Feds, the employer goes to jail, never the employee. Of course, when that check cleared, the money was immediately spent on current expenses, and some obscure bond was issued somewhere, saying: "Future US taxpayers promise to pay...." We have a talk show hostess here in Chicago, Teri O'Brien (temporarily off the air, unfortunately) a recovering attorney, who often points out there are two Supreme Court decisions from the late '30s that say the people who got the pay stubs have not a shred of claim on those bonds. I wonder, did Milton think up the original SSoc joke, or did he just discover how easy it would be to apply it to general taxes? Whatever, now we have the even more monstrous problem that the average NSE wage earner doesn't really give a damn about how high taxes go, since again, if that FedTax 'deduction' doesn't show up at the Federal Treasury, it's the employer who goes to jail, never the employee. The so-called taxpayer may jabber a lot about how 'that's his money', but even if he need not worry about going to jail if his 'contribution' doesn't make it to the Feds, he can get big trouble trying to write checks on his gross. So he has a strong inclination to vote for those who promise the hand-outs, and not the people who might suggest lowering taxes on the employers. And the employer? Just another expense - he could hire more people if it was lower, but there's just not enough of them voting. Then, just to prove every scam can be improved, there's the 'refund'.You can force your employer to pay even more than your 'share', and at the end of the year, we'll give it to you! This is even better than the fundamental precept of the banking industry: "You give us all of your money, and maybe we'll give you some back." That may be hyperbolic, but I worked for a bank for 13 years, and sometimes I got the feeling that was their ultimate, if unattainable, goal. I know you know all this, but it's so rarely discussed, it was refreshing to read your posts - I hope you can do it some more. Arn Nelson in Chicago
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Nasty note to WSJ on immigration
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 05:38:32 -0700 (PDT) From: "Arnold Nelson" <ah_nelson@yahoo.com> Subject: Illegal immigration To: "WSJ Letters" <wsj.ltrs@wsj.com>, Chicago Tuesday, July 11, 2006 Editors The Wall Street Journal Your Monday, July 10, 2006, editorial says "...immigration .... the subject on which we get the most critical mail by far, no doubt reflecting this split on the right." There's plenty of doubt about this reflection - more likely a reaction to the pathetic arguments supporting illegal immigration coming from the nation's otherwise top newspaper. Your immediate support for this position is referring to similar positions of "... 33 prominent conservatives...." One of the only two you name is GOP Vice Presidential nominee Jack Kemp. We sure know what a prominent Conservative Jack Kemp is - Al Gore told us so in the first 1996 Vice Presidential debate (and Jack lapped it up like the wishy-washy conservative that he is.) And of course, you can't claim conservative without mentioning St. Conservative himself, the poor Gipper, hardly cold in the grave. President Reagan signed the Simpson-Mazzoli bill, giving amnesty (without quotes!) to three million illegal immigrants, but tying it to recognition of the top reason for illegal immigration: ready hiring of illegal immigrants by American business, smallest to the largest. This recognition included a hefty $10,000 fine for the hire of each such illegal innigrant.
This penalty has been carried out so little that the total fines collected last year would barely buy a single house in even the most run down American housing market. You can quote books of Reagan speeches, but I don't think you'll convince anyone that President Reagan had the slightest premenition that the major American newspaper would propose, 20 years later, what you are proposing now.
Your most egregious argument is equating an artificially created "free market in human beings", with the obviously real free market in goods and services. This position would make the original temple money-changers cringe.
Then you admit to "... problems that can arise from illegal immigration: Trespassing, violent crime, overcrowded hospital emergency rooms, document counterfeiting, human smuggling, corpses in the Arizona desert..." but blythly blame these 'problems(!)' on "... too many immigrants chasing too few U.S. visas" and then say the solution is "...more legal ways to enter the country."
In a June 19, 2006 National Review article, Mark Steyn (keep an eye on this guy - from the quantity of high quality material he writes, he's fast becoming a one man WSJ) writes: "...there are already 79 different visas offered by U.S. immigration, including 20 guest worker programs" adding "...take the president and the Senate at their word on the overwhelming need for a 21st program." Mark can add the WSJ to that list.
And of course, you want a "...multiyear path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already here- -provided that they meet certain requirements like living crime free, learning English and paying taxes.
"Living crime free" sounds like the old "every dog gets his first bite free" - we'll forget that first little no-no about breaking federal immigration laws, but that's it! Be nice! And learn English? What happens to them if they don't learn English? Will they be deported?
As wage-earners, they have no obligation to 'pay taxes.' Every penny of any taxes they owe must come from their employer's bank account. If that money doesn't show up in the US treasury, the employer goes to jail, never the employee.
But what's this? A WSJ editorial on immigration, and no plaintive cry of "We can't deport 12 million people." I suppose you've already read Mark Krikorian's article, also refered to in the National Review, pointing out that 400,000 illegals are being legitimized every year on their own (deporting themselves, being deported, being legalized, and dying.) But of course they get lost in those three million coming in illeglly every year. Seal that border, and start enforcing those Simpson-Mazolli illegal employer fines, and this problem will solve itself.
It's bad enough that an organization with your much deserved reputation for clear thinking would take the illegal immigration position you do, but the flimsyness of your arguments supporting that position is depressing. Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com
This penalty has been carried out so little that the total fines collected last year would barely buy a single house in even the most run down American housing market. You can quote books of Reagan speeches, but I don't think you'll convince anyone that President Reagan had the slightest premenition that the major American newspaper would propose, 20 years later, what you are proposing now.
Your most egregious argument is equating an artificially created "free market in human beings", with the obviously real free market in goods and services. This position would make the original temple money-changers cringe.
Then you admit to "... problems that can arise from illegal immigration: Trespassing, violent crime, overcrowded hospital emergency rooms, document counterfeiting, human smuggling, corpses in the Arizona desert..." but blythly blame these 'problems(!)' on "... too many immigrants chasing too few U.S. visas" and then say the solution is "...more legal ways to enter the country."
In a June 19, 2006 National Review article, Mark Steyn (keep an eye on this guy - from the quantity of high quality material he writes, he's fast becoming a one man WSJ) writes: "...there are already 79 different visas offered by U.S. immigration, including 20 guest worker programs" adding "...take the president and the Senate at their word on the overwhelming need for a 21st program." Mark can add the WSJ to that list.
And of course, you want a "...multiyear path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already here- -provided that they meet certain requirements like living crime free, learning English and paying taxes.
"Living crime free" sounds like the old "every dog gets his first bite free" - we'll forget that first little no-no about breaking federal immigration laws, but that's it! Be nice! And learn English? What happens to them if they don't learn English? Will they be deported?
As wage-earners, they have no obligation to 'pay taxes.' Every penny of any taxes they owe must come from their employer's bank account. If that money doesn't show up in the US treasury, the employer goes to jail, never the employee.
But what's this? A WSJ editorial on immigration, and no plaintive cry of "We can't deport 12 million people." I suppose you've already read Mark Krikorian's article, also refered to in the National Review, pointing out that 400,000 illegals are being legitimized every year on their own (deporting themselves, being deported, being legalized, and dying.) But of course they get lost in those three million coming in illeglly every year. Seal that border, and start enforcing those Simpson-Mazolli illegal employer fines, and this problem will solve itself.
It's bad enough that an organization with your much deserved reputation for clear thinking would take the illegal immigration position you do, but the flimsyness of your arguments supporting that position is depressing. Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Sunday, June 2, 2002
First BestOfTheWSJweb submission
Sunday, June 2, 2002 9:17 AM
From: "Arnold Nelson" To: "Best of the Web" <opinionjournal@wsj.com>
What's wrong with a little censorship... ...as long as "[no] student ... feel[s] ill at easewhile taking [a] test."
A news article in the Sunday, June 2, 2002 New YorkTimes 'The Elderly Man and the Sea? Test Sanitizes Literary Texts' describes how Regents tests, which NewYork State requires public high school students to take to graduate, "...are modified ... to satisfy elaborate 'sensitivity review guidelines.'"
Here are three paragraphs:
"... a mother of a high school senior ... inspected 1 high school English exams from the past three years and discovered that the vast majority of the passages— drawn from the works of Isaac Bashevis Singer, AntonChekhov and William Maxwell, among others — had been sanitized of virtually any reference to race, religion, ethnicity, sex, nudity, alcohol, even the mildest profanity and just about anything that might offend someone for some reason.
Students had to write essays and answer questions based on these doctored versions — versions that were clearly marked as the work of the widely known authors."
"Certain revisions bordered on the absurd. In a speech by Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary general,in addition to deletions about the United States' unpaid debt to the United Nations, any mention of wine and drinking was removed. Instead of praising 'fine California wine and seafood,' he ends up praising'fine California seafood.' "
Roseanne DeFabio, the Education Department's assistant commissioner for curriculum, instruction and assessment, was quoted on Friday, "We do shorten the passages and alter the passages to make them suitablef or testing situations." The changes are made to satisfy the sensitivity guidelines the department uses, so no student will be "uncomfortable in a testing situation," she said. "Even the most wonderful writers don't write literature for children to take on a test."
Read it all at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/02/education/02REGE.html?pagewanted=print&position=top
Arnold H. Nelson in Chicago
[And here is the link to the June 3, 2002 BestOfTheWeb
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110001794
where the above story is refed in the column near the end, and my name is in the contributor's list at the end of the column.
It got better: About a year later, the NYTimes had another article on this subject, I sent that to BOTWT... and got it printed then, too (see you later.)
From: "Arnold Nelson" To: "Best of the Web" <opinionjournal@wsj.com>
What's wrong with a little censorship... ...as long as "[no] student ... feel[s] ill at easewhile taking [a] test."
A news article in the Sunday, June 2, 2002 New YorkTimes 'The Elderly Man and the Sea? Test Sanitizes Literary Texts' describes how Regents tests, which NewYork State requires public high school students to take to graduate, "...are modified ... to satisfy elaborate 'sensitivity review guidelines.'"
Here are three paragraphs:
"... a mother of a high school senior ... inspected 1 high school English exams from the past three years and discovered that the vast majority of the passages— drawn from the works of Isaac Bashevis Singer, AntonChekhov and William Maxwell, among others — had been sanitized of virtually any reference to race, religion, ethnicity, sex, nudity, alcohol, even the mildest profanity and just about anything that might offend someone for some reason.
Students had to write essays and answer questions based on these doctored versions — versions that were clearly marked as the work of the widely known authors."
"Certain revisions bordered on the absurd. In a speech by Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary general,in addition to deletions about the United States' unpaid debt to the United Nations, any mention of wine and drinking was removed. Instead of praising 'fine California wine and seafood,' he ends up praising'fine California seafood.' "
Roseanne DeFabio, the Education Department's assistant commissioner for curriculum, instruction and assessment, was quoted on Friday, "We do shorten the passages and alter the passages to make them suitablef or testing situations." The changes are made to satisfy the sensitivity guidelines the department uses, so no student will be "uncomfortable in a testing situation," she said. "Even the most wonderful writers don't write literature for children to take on a test."
Read it all at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/02/education/02REGE.html?pagewanted=print&position=top
Arnold H. Nelson in Chicago
[And here is the link to the June 3, 2002 BestOfTheWeb
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110001794
where the above story is refed in the column near the end, and my name is in the contributor's list at the end of the column.
It got better: About a year later, the NYTimes had another article on this subject, I sent that to BOTWT... and got it printed then, too (see you later.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
