Letter to NYTimes explaining 1st amendment...

...people peaceably assemling.

Chicago Monday PM 7 February 2011

Gentlepeople:

A New York Times Editorial of Saturday 5 February refers to the United States Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling as “unleashing corporate money into politics....”

Since Times' editorials have referenced the First Amendment to the United States Constitution at least twice in just the past 30 days, could we expect you to have some familiarity with the the part where it says “Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble?” What is a corporation other than people peaceably assembling, spending group money or not?

Arnold H Nelson

Letter to WSJ on ethanol

Chicago Tuesday AM 1 February 2011

Editors, The Wall Street Journal

Gentlepeople:

The Wall Street Journal closes its Saturday 22 January editorial “Amber Waves of Ethanol” with the fine point that “it makes no sense to devote scarce farmland to make a fuel that exists only because of taxpayer subsidies and mandates.” Just how scarce can be demmonstrated by noting that corn cannot be grown on the 70% of the earth's surface covered by seawater (unlike oil, which just getting started seems to be found anywhere anyone wants to make a 15,000 foot try.) And corn is quite finnicky on just where on the 30% of the surface it will grow: not too much corn grown in the world's largest desert, nor the polar regions. Even where it can be grown, it can't be done continuously – it must be regularly rotated with other crops that do not demand so much of the soil.

After such a fine description of an important point, you could be excused for taking a rest, but you come back just 9 days later with your “Professor Cornpone” editorial of Monday 31 January. Maybe not such a hard job after all, needing only to quote the History PhD Newt Gingrich foolishly describing your “long-held anti-ethanol views as 'just plain flat intellectually wrong.'”

Mr. Gingrich should quite trying to out-Perlosi the minority house leader and return to what he does better than anyone: Maintaining and increasing Republican control of the National legislature.

Arnold H Nelson

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

THIS ONE WAS PRINTED IN WSJ!!!

... I sent a note to my contact list, answering the question 'how to get a letter printed in the WSJ': Pick 80 words of James Madison, bracket them with 20 each of your own, send it in. It worked for me.

Chicago AM Tuesday 28 December 2010

Editors, The Wall Street Journal

Gentlepeople:

The Wall Street Journal of Monday 27 December has Randy Barnett and David G Oedel writing a fine explanation of the Constitution's Article I Section 8 General Welfare clause. There is no statement of United States governance more in need of explanation than that clause, and no two people better able to do it.

The wonder is that this key statement could need any help, considering that 221 years ago James Madison clearly identified some common misunderstandings of the clause, and explained what the founders meant by them, clearly, thoroly, and I'm sure he felt finally, when in Federalist Number 41 he wrote :

“Some [Constitution doubters]... have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "… to provide for the general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the... general welfare....

“Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it.... but what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? “

And following that semicolon is a list of 17 Congressional powers, from 'borrow money on the credit of the United States' thru 'make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers' ..... but not a sign of health care, environmental protection, education, housing etc.

Too bad the Father of the Constitution did not anticipate future misunderstanding of the Commerce clause.

Arnold H Nelson