Sunday, May 22, 2011

Letter to WSJ on how Federal spending sent berserk...

Chicago PM Sunday 22 May 2011

Editors, The Wall Street Journal

Gentlepeople:

The Wall Street Journal OpEd “The Medicare Test for President” of Friday 20 May does a fine job of explaining the dire financial straights of our federal government, and why the by far best solution has
been presented by US Representatives Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

Sometimes when in a bad situation, a worth while exercise at solving things is looking upstream
to see why and how we got here.

So what were the 90% of voters who were wage earners back in 1966 thinking when they made out and remitted those monthly checks to cover their income tax obligations when the Democrats proposed taking over the national health care industry wth Medicare?

Of course, that's a trick question, since with the minor exception of a possible April settling-up (and the feds were doing all they could at reducing) no voter/wage-earner was writing any checks to the feds to cover income tax. The 1943 Current Tax payment act broke that link, such that employers were doing all the check writing. If the checks did not reach the feds, the employer went to jail, never the wage-earner.

The employers did have an out: since all employers were forced to send in this money, there was no competitive reason to do anything other than pass the cost on to customers in higher product prices. Thus 90% of personal income taxes were converted to an all but invisible national sales tax.

To see how significant this is needs only a look at the 2011 Statistical Abstract of the United States table 478 showing 37% of the total 2009 [latest data available] federal income of $2.345 trillion coming from employer bank accounts, not voter's. (And since no wage earner has ever sent in one cent to the Social Security system, adding that program's employer withheld taxes brings that total to 73% of 2009 federal income.)

If this isn't bad enough, we have millions of 65+ senior citizens with fistfuls of pay stubs saying: “You earned, and your employer paid....” But is there a single one of them who actually remembers one week when their take home pay was slightly reduced to go for income taxes? Not if they've taken another job in the meantime. Wage earners get a pay stub with a big number at the top, and a smaller number below. That is the amount that goes in their personal bank account, and the only figure that counts.

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...." The employer would still calculate the tax, including a note: "Here is how much the feds are expecting you personally to send in within 30 days"

This could not be done overnite, but randomly choosing a single letter every quarter, and requiring all voters with names beginning with that letter to submit to the new pay as you go tax system, would get the whole thing done in 9 years. This period would include two Presidential elections, 4 house
elections, and a complete rebuild of the Senate.

A problem is what to do with those seniors already depending on Medicare benefits. This problem
will solve itself: keep paying them - the expense will go down 2.5% every year until in 40 years
the there will be no one left to take it.

What must be done immediately is eliminating the myth of the “benefits” of federal health care.
Requiring voters to send in a check for 20% of their take home pay every month should convince
them.

Arnold H Nelson
5056 North Marine Drive Chicago 60640
773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com

Letter to NYTimes on Obama out-of-control spending

Chicago Sunday PM 22 May 2011


Editors, The New York Times


Gentlepeople:


The New York Times editorial “Budget Hopes...” of Thursday 19 May credits Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn with “acknowledging that the budget cannot be put in long-term balance without new money.”


For its first 6 years the Bush administration, assisted by a Republican Congress, ran an average monthly deficit of $20 billion. In its last two years, assisted by a Democrat Congress, the monthly average deficit was increased to $35 billion. For the first 26 months of the Obama administration the average monthly deficit has been $121 billion.


And you claim “the budget cannot be put in long-term balance without new money?”


And you call the Republicans “ideologues” (commonly defined as 'impractical idealists')?


Arnold H Nelson

5056 North Marine Drive Chicago 60640

773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com


Sunday, May 15, 2011

Letter to WSJ on Arthur Laffer flat rate tax

Chicago PM Sunday 8 May 2011


Editors, The Wall Street Journal


Gentlepeople:


The Wall Street Journal's Arthur Laffer OpEd “The 30-Cent Tax Premium” of Monday 18 April makes the startling statement that “Taxpayers must spend significantly more than $1 in order to provide $1 of income-tax revenue to the federal government.” A sobering Tuesday 26 April letter points out “the few million or so tax-industry employees who will lose their jobs when their 'tax-compliance time' is freed up for more productive purposes.”


It would appear that since tax payers are voters, they would not vote for congress people who would enact such economy distorting rules and procedures. Unfortunately this link was severed by the Current Tax Payment act of 1943 that moved the responsibility of actual remittance of income tax dollars from the voter to the employer. If the money doesn't get to the feds, the employer goes to jail, never the voter/employee. But the employer has an out not available to the individual voter: because every employer must send these real dollars in, they have no competitive reason to do anything but add this cost to their prices, inadvertently, but decisively, converting income taxes to a silent national sales tax.


At the other end of this monstrosity is an army of voters with fistfuls of pay stubs saying “you earned and your employer paid” demanding that they earned an old age pension, lifetime medical care.


The result of this political parlor trick is clearly visible in the 2011 Statistical Abstract of the United States table 478 showing 37% of the total 2009 federal income of $2.345 trillion coming from employer bank accounts, not voter's.

(Adding the Social Security boondoggle brings that total to 2/3 of total 2009 federal income.)


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...."


The employer would still calculate the tax, including a note: "Here is how much the feds are expecting you personally to send in within 30 days"


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


This could not be done overnite, but randomly choosing a single letter every quarter, and requiring all voters with names beginning with that letter to submit to the new pay as you go tax system, would get the whole thing done in 9 years. This period would include two Presidential elections, 4 house elections, and a complete rebuild of the Senate.


Arnold H Nelson


Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Letter to WSJ - are Corporations people?

Chicago PM Wednesday 11 May 2011


Editors, The Wall Street Journal


Gentlepeople:


Addressing the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission SCOTUS decision, a letter in the Wednesday 11 May Wall Street Journal says corporations are “persons literally without souls.”


But are not corporations people peaceably assembling, as the first amendment says “Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people” to do?


Arnold H Nelson

5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL

773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com


Letter to WSJ on Citizens United Scotus decision

Chicago PM Wednesday 11 May 2011


Editors, The Wall Street Journal


Gentlepeople:


Addressing the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission SCOTUS decision, a letter in the Wednesday 11 May Wall Street Journal says corporations are “persons literally without souls.”


But are not corporations people peaceably assembling, as the first amendment says “Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people” to do?


Arnold H Nelson

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

I correct James Taranto...?!?

...am I the 4000th person to try and point it out?


WSJ BEST OF THE WEB TODAY Tuesday 10 MAY 2011

Take His Wife. Please....


By JAMES TARANTO


"The U.S. would like to interview Mrs. bin Laden, along with the other Mrs. bin Laden and the other other Mrs. bin Laden. (Blame monogamy for that awkward locution--there's no plural for 'Mrs.')...."


Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary copyright 1981 G & C Merriam Co. Page 747:


Mrs. \,mis-;}z, -;}S, esp South .miz-~z, -:;IS, or (for sense 1) (.)miz, or before given names (,)mis\ n,


pI Mes.dames \ma-'diim, -'dam\ {Mrs. abbr. of mistress; Mesdames fr. F, pI. of Madame] 1 a used as a conventional title of courtesy....


Arn Nelson in Chicago

Reported an error to WSJ BOTWT...

...they didn't admit the error, but put my name in the contributors list:


WSJ BEST OF THE WEB TODAY Tuesday 10 MAY 2011

Take His Wife. Please....


By JAMES TARANTO


"The U.S. would like to interview Mrs. bin Laden, along with the other Mrs. bin Laden and the other other Mrs. bin Laden. (Blame monogamy for that awkward locution--there's no plural for 'Mrs.')...."


Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary copyright 1981 G & C Merriam Co. Page 747:


Mrs. \,mis-;}z, -;}S, esp South .miz-~z, -:;IS, or (for sense 1) (.)miz, or before given names (,)mis\ n,


pI Mes.dames \ma-'diim, -'dam\ {Mrs. abbr. of mistress; Mesdames fr. F, pI. of Madame] 1 a used as a conventional title of courtesy....


Arn Nelson in Chicago