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
Thursday, May 7, 2009
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
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
I sent this in to the Wall Street Journal this AM...
...and they used it today at OpinionJournal.com/TheBestOfTheWeb
And so my name is in the contributor's list at the end of the column. I've been in that list well over 80 times in the last eight years, but this is the first time in the last several months. I thot they were mad at me.
From: Arnold Nelson To: "Best of the Web"
Everything Seemingly Is Spinning Out of Control
"Raids disrupt cocaine pipeline into Minnesota"
Minneapolis Star-Tribune Wednesday, April 29, 2009
And so my name is in the contributor's list at the end of the column. I've been in that list well over 80 times in the last eight years, but this is the first time in the last several months. I thot they were mad at me.
From: Arnold Nelson To: "Best of the Web"
Everything Seemingly Is Spinning Out of Control
"Raids disrupt cocaine pipeline into Minnesota"
Minneapolis Star-Tribune Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Texas Senator John Cornyn: Checks and balances?
Tuesday, April 28, 2009 2:18 PM
From: "Arnold Nelson" <ah_nelson@yahoo.com>
To: "Senator John Cornyn" <newsletter@cornyn.senate.gov>
Cc: "Ramesh Ponnuru National Review Mag" <rponnuru@politicalusa.com>
Senator Cornyn:
Your fine newsletter is at the top of my subscription list, and I look forward to it. I was surprised to see you quoted by Ramesh Ponnuru on National Review's Corner blog referring to "checks-and-balances," but implying that they have to do with political parties.
"Checks-and-balances" appears twice in the 192,000 words of the Federalist papers (9 and 51,) but both times referring to departments - legislative, executive, and judicial. Are the words of the Federalist papers being slowly supplanted by common usage now, 220 years later?
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 50540 Cornyn on Specter
[Ramesh Ponnuru]
In his statement, Specter thanked Cornyn and McConnell for their "forbearance."
Here's Cornyn's statement (bolded in the original release):
“Senator Specter’s decision today represents the height of political self-preservation. While this presents a short-term disappointment, voters next year will have a clear choice to cast their ballots for a potentially unbridled Democrat super-majority versus the system of checks-and-balances that Americans deserve.”
04/28 01:21 PM NationalReview.com/TheCorner
From: "Arnold Nelson" <ah_nelson@yahoo.com>
To: "Senator John Cornyn" <newsletter@cornyn.senate.gov>
Cc: "Ramesh Ponnuru National Review Mag" <rponnuru@politicalusa.com>
Senator Cornyn:
Your fine newsletter is at the top of my subscription list, and I look forward to it. I was surprised to see you quoted by Ramesh Ponnuru on National Review's Corner blog referring to "checks-and-balances," but implying that they have to do with political parties.
"Checks-and-balances" appears twice in the 192,000 words of the Federalist papers (9 and 51,) but both times referring to departments - legislative, executive, and judicial. Are the words of the Federalist papers being slowly supplanted by common usage now, 220 years later?
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 50540 Cornyn on Specter
[Ramesh Ponnuru]
In his statement, Specter thanked Cornyn and McConnell for their "forbearance."
Here's Cornyn's statement (bolded in the original release):
“Senator Specter’s decision today represents the height of political self-preservation. While this presents a short-term disappointment, voters next year will have a clear choice to cast their ballots for a potentially unbridled Democrat super-majority versus the system of checks-and-balances that Americans deserve.”
04/28 01:21 PM NationalReview.com/TheCorner
Sunday, April 26, 2009
ChiTrib letter on George W. Bush's war?
Chicago, Sunday AM, April 26, 2009
Voice of the People, Chicago Tribune
A letter in the Tuesday, April 22, Chicago Tribune "Tea party shame" speaks of "the trillions it's costing us for George W. Bush's war."
If the writer goes to congress.gov (if he has no computer, I'm sure his local public library staff would be delighted to do it for him) and reads House-Senate Joint Resolution of October 10, 2002 for "Use of Military Force Against Iraq" he would learn a lot of what he apparently doesn't know about "Geirge W Bush's war."
Its 1300 words contain 22 statements justifying invading Iraq, and includes the words 'weapons of mass destruction' (6 times,) 'September 11, 2001' (5 times,) 'al Quaida' once, and 'nuclear' 4 times. (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.) Every penny of those trillions the war is costing was approved by the Congress. This was not George Bush's war - it was the US Congress' war.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago 60650
Voice of the People, Chicago Tribune
A letter in the Tuesday, April 22, Chicago Tribune "Tea party shame" speaks of "the trillions it's costing us for George W. Bush's war."
If the writer goes to congress.gov (if he has no computer, I'm sure his local public library staff would be delighted to do it for him) and reads House-Senate Joint Resolution of October 10, 2002 for "Use of Military Force Against Iraq" he would learn a lot of what he apparently doesn't know about "Geirge W Bush's war."
Its 1300 words contain 22 statements justifying invading Iraq, and includes the words 'weapons of mass destruction' (6 times,) 'September 11, 2001' (5 times,) 'al Quaida' once, and 'nuclear' 4 times. (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.) Every penny of those trillions the war is costing was approved by the Congress. This was not George Bush's war - it was the US Congress' war.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago 60650
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Free help for the Republicans from the British press
Chicago PM Saturday, April 25, 2009
Editors, Financial Times
Gentlepeople:
The Financial Times is a fine newspaper, and I am lucky to have it available to me early every AM. But about the only good thing about your Wednesday April 22 editorial "Republicans slide into disarray" is that it will be ignored.
You begin "The founders of the US were right: checks and balances make for better government." If you would acquaint yourselves with the Federalist papers you would see that 'checks and balances" has nothing to do with political opposition, but specifically with the three branches, legislative, executive, and judicial, so arranged and empowered that they continuously check and balance each other.
Next you say "If the Republicans are to strengthen their position in Congress... and... mount a credible challenge for the White House... they must win back the independent voters.... Didn't we run the most independent of independent Republicans last fall? Look what it got us.
Then you say "Sarah Palin... compounds the party’s problems."
Yes, poor Sarah, with a pathetic 21 months of actual executive experience, as it turns out not only infinitely more than her running mate, but both opposing candidates too. Then you complain that "the [Republican] party keeps striding to the right." Yes, some of us are trying to stride back to 1980-1984, when we won two consecutive landslides with a no-nonsense right-winger, who also had eight years as governor of the largest state. We managed to follow that with a bureaucrat with zero executive experience, to lose to the first Democrat governor who popped up. Then we tried the "who's turn is it" strategy, nominating another legislator with no more executive experience that it takes to run a senate office staff Christmas party, and that foxy hillbilly governor did it to us again.
Then we got things more-or-less together again with someone who at least had 5 years experience meeting a $60 million annual private sector payroll, and 6 years governing the second largest state. He had weaknesses, but not enough for the Democrats to take over with another pair of legislative dunces with no executive experience. And for all that George W Bush was considered descended from 'political royalty' it was Al Gore who would never have got beyond cuttin' 'backy had his father not been a gifted politician.
Britain is a fine place to visit, but from all I read, not too good a place to need health care. And maybe approaching not too good a place to be non-Muslim, considering the rising imminence of Sharia law. So maybe the well earned influence of the Financial Times editorial page would be better applied to fixing your own considerable problems.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago 60640 IL
Editors, Financial Times
Gentlepeople:
The Financial Times is a fine newspaper, and I am lucky to have it available to me early every AM. But about the only good thing about your Wednesday April 22 editorial "Republicans slide into disarray" is that it will be ignored.
You begin "The founders of the US were right: checks and balances make for better government." If you would acquaint yourselves with the Federalist papers you would see that 'checks and balances" has nothing to do with political opposition, but specifically with the three branches, legislative, executive, and judicial, so arranged and empowered that they continuously check and balance each other.
Next you say "If the Republicans are to strengthen their position in Congress... and... mount a credible challenge for the White House... they must win back the independent voters.... Didn't we run the most independent of independent Republicans last fall? Look what it got us.
Then you say "Sarah Palin... compounds the party’s problems."
Yes, poor Sarah, with a pathetic 21 months of actual executive experience, as it turns out not only infinitely more than her running mate, but both opposing candidates too. Then you complain that "the [Republican] party keeps striding to the right." Yes, some of us are trying to stride back to 1980-1984, when we won two consecutive landslides with a no-nonsense right-winger, who also had eight years as governor of the largest state. We managed to follow that with a bureaucrat with zero executive experience, to lose to the first Democrat governor who popped up. Then we tried the "who's turn is it" strategy, nominating another legislator with no more executive experience that it takes to run a senate office staff Christmas party, and that foxy hillbilly governor did it to us again.
Then we got things more-or-less together again with someone who at least had 5 years experience meeting a $60 million annual private sector payroll, and 6 years governing the second largest state. He had weaknesses, but not enough for the Democrats to take over with another pair of legislative dunces with no executive experience. And for all that George W Bush was considered descended from 'political royalty' it was Al Gore who would never have got beyond cuttin' 'backy had his father not been a gifted politician.
Britain is a fine place to visit, but from all I read, not too good a place to need health care. And maybe approaching not too good a place to be non-Muslim, considering the rising imminence of Sharia law. So maybe the well earned influence of the Financial Times editorial page would be better applied to fixing your own considerable problems.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago 60640 IL
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
