Joe Biden's Foreign relations experience?!?!?

Chicago AM Thursday  26 April 2012

Editors, The Wall Street Journal

Gentlepeople:

In his Thursday 26 April OpEd "I Was Wrong About Dick Cheney..." about vice presidential choices, Karl Rove Wrote:

"That same year [2008], Barack Obama... worried about his absence of international experience...  turned to Mr. [Joe] Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."

Thinking the chairman of the US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee would know anything about Foreign Relations is as dumb as thinking someone whose political experience was limited to being a Community Organizer ( Chicago euphemism for Democrat vote hustler) would know anything about being president. 

Arnold H Nelson

5056 North Marine Drive   Chicago 60640 

773-677-3010   ah_nelson@yahoo.com

WSJ: Payroll tax cut helps SocSec?

Chicago PM Wednesday 25 April 2012 

Editors, The Wall Street Journal

Gentlepeople:

The Wall Street Journal article “Payroll Tax Cut Could Help Social Security” (Wednesday 25 April) refers to “payroll tax” eight times. This tax got the name because it is a tax on payrolls, the responsibility of employers, who must remit the tax monthly to the federal government or go to jail. The 2012 Statistical Abstract of the United states shows 73% of all federal taxes received in 2010 came from employers' bank accounts. But the employee must be informed in writing that if the employer was not required to pay this tax, they would have given the money to the employee. So employees have fistfulls of statements saying “You earned, and your employer paid...”  After 20 years of this they start thinking:  “Hey!  I deserve medicare, I deserve Social Security, I paid in!” 

If the employer doesn't send in the tax, their only resort is to add it to their product cost. Thus the tax credited to employees is effectively a silent, painless, national sales tax.

Is there a way to fix this scam? Sure: Get 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 to the employee: "Here is what the feds are expecting you personally to remit in 30 days"

Returning to voters the responsibility of writing checks to fund the government would force them to face how much all these entitlements cost, encouraging voting for legislators less likely to support federal vote-buying giveaways. What would employers do with all that money they are sending in now? Hire more workers? Goodbye recession!

Arnold H Nelson  ah_nelson@yahoo.com

Social Security Trust Fund?!?!?

Chicago AM Tuesday 24 April 2012 351 words

Editors, the Wall Street Journal

Gentlepeople:

The Wall Street Journal article “Outlook for Social Security, Medicare Continues to Deteriorate” by Mathew Crittendon and Eric Morath of Monday 23 April uses the term 'trust fund' five times, referring to money the federal government uses to fund the 'safety net,' a term found in neither the 8 thousand word Constitution, nor its supporting 192 thousand word Federalist Papers.

It seems strange that a newspaper of the size and reputation of The Wall Street Journal would use that term even once, since the only fund the federal government has is the general fund.

The general fund has two functions: As a receptacle for all the money the federal government takes in, and the single source of all the money it spends. The going-in money is tainted from the start: it is alleged to come from wage earners' income tax and 'safety net' contributions (social security and medicare,) but actually comes from employers bank accounts. The only link to wage earners is paystubs saying “We are required to send in large amounts of money to the federal government, but rest assured if we weren't threatened with jail we would have given the money to you. (The 2012 Statistical Abstract of the United states shows 73% of all federal taxes received in 2010 came from employers' bank accounts, not Wage earners'.)

The outgo from the general fund has no relation at all to the income: Its amount is limited to the minimum needed to keep voters believing they are getting something for nothing. But even this carefully limited amount is more than the general fund income, so the federal government is forced to borrow money to make the system work. During the first six years of the George W Bush administration that borrowing amounted to an unprecedented at the time monthly shortfall of $20 billion. In the last 2 years, with the able assistance of a Democrat House of Reps, who know a thing or two about deficits, it was increased to $35 billion a month. This process has become so knee-jerk that the current President has increased it to $120 billion a month.

Arnold H Nelson  ah_nelson@yahoo.com

More get rid of withholding taxes

Chicago PM Saturday 21 April 2012  

Editors, the Wall Street Journal  282 words

Gentlepeople:

The Wall Street Journal  Friday 20 April opinion piece “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Insurance” has Princeton University professor Alan Blinder writing: “Our country was founded on the idea that the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable. Access to affordable health care is surely essential to two of these three rights....”  

We got along for 190 years without federal government interference in personal healthcare, and became the strongest, healthiest civilization in world history.  Why did it suddenly become a federal priority in 1965?

Ninety per cent of voters are wage earners. Before the Current Tax payment act of 1943 voters were required to write personal checks to the federal treasury annually for a tax on their income. The act moved that responsibility from employees to employers by requiring employers to withhold the tax from the employees' pay checks.  Employers now needed to accumulate the money in their bank accounts, and write a check to the feds monthly.  If the employer doesn't send it, he goes to jail – never the wage earner.  The 2012 Statistical Abstract of the United states shows 73% of all federal taxes received in 2010 came from employers' bank accounts, not Wage earners.

But the wage earner has fistfulls of statements saying “You earned, and your employer paid...”  After 20 years of this they start thinking:  “Hey!  I deserve medicare, I deserve Social Security, I paid in!” 

Returning the responsibility of writing checks to fund the government to voters might help them figure out that the government has no money they didn't take from someone else, so they would be better off paying for their own health insurance.

Arnold H Nelson  ah_nelson@yahoo.com

ChiTrib/Steve Chapman ChiTrib/withholding

Chicago Friday AM 20 April 2012

Voice of the People, Chicago Tribune

Gentlepeople:

The Chicago Tribune's columnist Steve Chapman wrote on Thursday 19 April that in this election year many voters “...won't learn the most rudimentary facts about the people running for office and the policy issues they will have to address.”

Has Mr. Chapman considered that the 2012 Statistical Abstract of the United states shows 73% of all federal taxes received in 2010 came from employers' bank accounts, not voters'? Ninety per cent of voters are wage earners, and since the 1937 Social Security act and the 1943 Current Tax Payment act, employers have been required to 'withhold' those payments and write checks on their bank accounts to the federal government. If the checks don't get to the Treasury, the employer goes to jail, never the wage earner.

Where do employers get this money? They add it to the cost of their products, thus alleged wage earner income taxes are actually a silent, effectively painless, national sales tax.

But there are millions of voters, each with fistfulls of pay stubs saying "You paid ..." – they want their social security, their medicare, their food stamps, their unemployment benefits, all those government handouts. Who do you think they will vote for?

Is there a way to fix this scam? Sure: Get 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 what the feds are expecting you personally to send in within 30 days"

Returning to voters the responsibility of writing checks to fund the government might help them reach Steve Chapman's admirably high goals stated in his first paragraph: ”...carefully following the campaigns, finding out all we can about the candidates' proposals and pondering what issues are most vital for the nation's future.”


Arnold H Nelson    ah_nelson@yahoo.com

New York Times Monday 16 April 2012

"Aides Play Down Romney’s Talk on Taxes for Wealthy

"Senior advisers to Mitt Romney said Monday that Mr. Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, was merely tossing around ideas, not making policy announcements, when his chat with donors about some significant changes to the tax code was overheard by reporters at a fund-raiser this weekend.

"Campaign surrogates and officials played down Mr. Romney’s candid talk about tax changes for the wealthy, including ending mortgage interest deductions for second homes, eliminating deductions for state and local taxes, as well as closing or merging federal agencies that deal with education [!] and housing [!!]...."

That's a great start, Mitt.  How about dumping the mortgage deduction completely.

Read all 800 words at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/us/politics/aides-play-down-romneys-comments-on-tax-changes-for-wealthy.html?_r=1&nl=us&emc=edit_cn_20120416&pagewanted=print

Arn Nelson in Chicago  ah_nelson@yahoo.com

Chicago Monday AM 16 April 2012

Editors, The New York Times

Gentlepeople:

The New York Times Saturday 14 April Editorial “More Help for the Wealthy” opens complaining that the Republicans are trying to “starve the government of needed revenue.”

In its first 6 years The George W Bush administration had a monthly average deficit of $20 billion, unprecedented at the time (the last two years, assisted by Democrat House of Reps, who know a thing or two about deficits, even that monthly average was raised to $35 billion.) In its first 42 months the Obama administration's average monthly deficit has been $120 billion. If ever a government needed a little reduction in revenue, this is it.

Next you claim “the economic reality is that employers, big and small, are hesitant to hire because of slow or uncertain demand for their products and services, not because of their tax burden.” Do the arithmetic. Regardless of the certainty of demand for their products and services, if you cut employers' taxes, they have more money to hire new employees.

You close referring to proposed Senate Democrat's calling for a vote on the Buffett Rule, that “would require the wealthiest taxpayers to pay at least 30 percent of their income in federal taxes and, in the process, raise some $47 billion over 10 years.” We're running a $120 billion average monthly federal deficit, and you use valuable New York Times editorial space plumping a Senate proposal that might raise $4.7 billion a year for 10 years?

Arnold H Nelson   ah_nelson@yahoo.com