Letter to ChiTrib on Repub primary process

Chicago Tuesday PM 21 February 2012

Chicago Tribune, Voice of the People

Gentlepeople:

The Chicago Tribune Editorial “The Santorum moment “ of Tuesday 21 February dismisses Newt Gingrich as having a “mammoth ego and condescending personality.” Can't someone who engineered the last federal budget surpluses (four in a row, 1998 thru 2001) as speaker of the US House of Representatives, have any ego and personality they want? Further, if it hadn't been for Newt Gingrich, the nation would be suffering thru its 58th straight year of Democrats controlling the spending initiating branch of our federal government.

The editorial accuses Santorum of “almost trying to give ammunition to those who regard him as a right-wing extremist.” Has the Tribune ever accused the current president of being a “left-wing extremist?” Certainly not in this editorial, where he is later referred to as “a gifted campaigner” The President's only gift is the ability to use a speech-enhancing tool invented in 1984, that allows him to read a prewritten script while appearing to speak from memory. Has any member of the Tribune Editorial Board ever heard him speak without it?

The first six years of the George W Bush presidency had an average monthly deficit of $20 billion (the last two years, assisted by a Democrat House of reps raised this to $35 billion/month.) This performance was unheard of at the time (noted disapprovingly in 48 Tribune editorials in the period.)

The corresponding figure for the current president's first 31 months was $120 billion/month. This administration is in deep trouble, and they know it. No amount of telepromting can save it, regardless of the Republicans choice to run against it.

Arnold H Nelson

Why I read the Wall Street Journal letters first....

Chicago AM Monday 13 February 2012

Editors, The Wall Street Journal

Gentlepeople:

The the Wall Street Journal's 19 letters of Monday 13 February "Mandates, Womens' Rights and Religious Freedom" is the finest set of letters I've seen anywhere on a top subject of the day, and the finest letters page of the Journal I've seen in 20 years of reading The Wall Street Journal (and having two of my own letters printed in that time.)

And I'm sure the lopsided 16-3 count favoring one position of the controversy over the other accurately reflects your readership, independent of whatever your editorial board's cumulative position on the subject. To top off all of that, you include one letter each self-identified as ostensibly from one side of the argument, but supporting the other side. Great Job!

Arnold H Nelson

Letter to WashingtonPoston minimum wage indexing

Chicago Saturday AM 4 February 2012

Editors, The Washington Post

Gentlepeople:

The Washington Post editorial “[Mitt] Romney]'s timely proposal to raise and index the minimum wage” (Thursday 2 February) says“the only way to raise or lower the minimum wage is through an act of Congress.” The United States Constitution cannot be clearer in defining things Congress is allowed to do in Article 1 Section 8, and it says nothing about telling citizens how much to pay for help.

Some think the General Welfare clause is justification in extreme situations, But James Madison foresaw that possibility 222 years ago and explained what the founders meant by the clause, 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 expression 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 dictating what one citizen must pay another for services rendered.

Unfortunately, the Father of the Constitution did not anticipate future misunderstanding of the Commerce clause.

Arnold H Nelson

Letter to WSJ: Is global warming really a problem?

Chicago PM Thursday 2 February 2012

Editors, The Wall Street Journal

Gentlepeople:

The Wall Street Journal 1 February letter “Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate”, as do most doom and gloom Climate scientists, eventually refers to “computer models,” here recently showing “during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures....” But have any of these Scientists ever considered a mathematical model projecting the 4.5 billion year age of the planet on a hypothetical 80-year human lifetime? Such a model shows one real earth year being 0.561 geezer seconds. Landmarks: earliest known use of charcoal (carbon) by humans, 54 minutes ago to our 80-year-old. Humans had no idea of measuring temperature before Galileo's 1593 invention of the thermometer, 4 minutes ago to our senior citizen. The letter refers to a “long-term warming trend” that “has not abated in the past decade.” Wow! a whole decade. 5.61 seconds in our model.

Humans have been on Earth 6.5 million years, 1.44% of the Earth's age. What was the climate doing in the first 98.56% of the planet's existence?

If a scientist took a blood pressure reading of an 80 year-old fellow scientist and got 120 over 80, did it again 5 minutes later and got 124 over 78, would they call 911 for an ambulance?

Arnold H nelson

5056 North Marine Drive Chicago 60640

773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com

Letter to WSJ -Mitch Daniels should be ashamed of himself

Chicago Thursday PM 26 January 2012

Editors, The Wall Street Journal

Gentlepeople:

The Wall Street Journal's 'Notable & Quotable' feature can have no better draw than quoting Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels. But the second sentence of the Thursday 26 January edition (“Medicare and Social Security have served us well, and that must continue.”)

indicates that Maybe Mrs Daniels (who allegedly nixed Mitch's try for the presidency) should be running for president.

Social Security is a lie and scam, no more than a tax on employers, and should be done away with.. Sure, way back in 1937, wage earners took a 1% hit, repeated every time there is an increase in the rate. But 99% of the time it is employers who are writing the checks and sending them into the treasury. If they don't they go to jail, never the wage earner. Since every employer must do this. there is no competitive reason to do anything but add it to the cost of their product. So all the money that goes to DC allegedly for SocSec is from a silent, painless national sales tax. According to the Statistical Abstract of the US this was 36% of all the taxes received by the federal government in 2010.

We have private sector corporations (Prudential, Massachusetts Mutual, Aetna, New York Life) who sell annuities, designed by actuaries, that customers can contribute to over their working careers and get fine pensions. These companies are successful because they take those contributions, accumulate them, invest them soundly in private companies that make things private citizens want and buy. Yes. They even invest in public projects such as infrastructure.

Compare this to SocSec and Medicare where even the illicitly labeled worker 'contributions' are 'invested' only in the general fund, which is the source of everything congress wants to support. SocSec 'benefits' also come from this fund, but equal only to the minimum necessary to keep voters believing they're getting something for nothing.

Whoever presents these facts is accused of wanting to push old people off a cliff. This is unnecessary since 2.5 % of the people who are already in it are dying every year. In 40 years they will all be gone and that problem will be solved. But we must stop pretending that it is a retirement system The Supreme Court has never been asked to determine it's constitutionality, but in its 1961 Fleming v Nestor decision did say it was not an annuity.

Arnold H Nelson

Letter to NYTimes: Is federal tax code unfair?

Chicago PM Sunday 22 January 2012

Editors, The New York Times

Gentlepeople:

The New York Times' editorial “The 1% and That 15%” (Wednesday 18 January) laments “the fundamental unfairness of the current tax code...” The biggest reason for this alleged unfairness is that it has been continually adjusted for nearly 90 years by Presidents and federal legislators, goaded by voters. And 90% of those voters opinions are distorted by the 1943 current tax payment act that dictated rather than being paid out of voters personal checking accounts, virtually all of it comes from employer bank accounts.

The 2012 Statistical Abstract of the United States says in 2010, 73% of gross US taxes collected were withheld from wage earners' pay. Since all employers must do this. there is no competitive reason to do anything other than add it to their product price. If that money doesn't get to Treasury, the employer goes to jail, never the wage earner. So more than 2/3 of all taxes received by the federal government come from a silent, painless national sales tax.

Even worse, 80 million wage earner voters have drawers full of pay stubs saying: “You earned and your employer paid” so they think the federal government owes them retirement income and medical care.

This needs neither a super committee nor a Constitutional amendment to fix, 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...."

Returning to voters the responsibility of writing personal checks to fund the government would force them to face how much all these entitlements cost, encouraging election of legislators less likely to support federal vote-buying giveaways.

Arnold H Nelson

Letter to Chicago Tribune; Are corporations people?

Chicago AM 20 January 2012

Chicago Tribune, Voice of the People:

The Chicago Tribune's columnist Jonah Goldberg on Thursday 19 January quotes Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens: "Corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires." What did Justice Stevens think the United States Constitution's first amendment meant by saying: “Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble...?” Are corporations anything other than people peaceably assembling?

Arnold H Nelson