Friday, June 27, 2008 1700 Editors, Chicago Sun-Times
Gentle people:
According to Friday, June 27 Sun-Times articles, many intelligent people are upset with the US Supreme Court's Second Amendment decision. The lead news article is headlined "Court blows away gun ban", and starts out with "Chicago is in the cross hairs of the gun owners rights movement". A second article quotes Mayor Daley saying the decision is "frightening" and harkens "back to the Old West". An editorial says it is a tax on Chicago citizens "to be paid in blood and money."
Why don't these influential Chicago citizens fight this outrageous decision by using the Constitution itself?
The job is half done: just take the 21st amendment "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed", replace "eighteenth" with "second" then follow procedures described in Article Five:
Get it passed by 2/3 majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, then get it accepted by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states. Note all three of these bodies are elected by the people, not appointed by the President. Also note, the President is not needed to repeal an amendment, nor are any unelected judges.
Good luck.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640 773-677-3010
Chicago IL Saturday, June 28, 2008 6PM Editors, New York Times
Gentlepeople:
Three letters in the Saturday, June 28 New York Times show confusion about the "archaically written" Second amendment to the US Constitution, what is meant by "a well regulated militia", and "service in the militia." A fourth letter says "This decision is for liberals what Roe was for conservatives."
Justice Scalia goes a little further than the first 13 words of the Second Amendment to address the confusion, starting his majority opinion with "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” followed by 1000 words of explanation, concluding with "We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans."
Unlike Justice Blackmun in 1973, Justice Scalia needed only the words of the 2nd Amendment for his argument, not the penumbra.
But if people don't like this decision, why not fight it using the Constitution itself?
The job is half done: just take the 21st amendment "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed", replace "eighteenth" with "second" then follow procedures described in Article Five:
Get it passed by 2/3 majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, then get it accepted by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states. Note all three of these bodies are elected by the people, neither nominated nor appointed by the President. Also note, the President is not needed to repeal an amendment, nor are any unelected judges.
Good luck.Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Chicago Tuesday, July 1, 2008 Voice of the People Chicago Tribune
Gentle people:
A 1100 word article "Roberts' record on high court defies '05 pledges of centrism" about the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court contains the word 'Constitution' only once ("execution by injection does not violate the Constitution".)
This seems strange since 'Constitution' is 14th word of the Oath Chief Roberts took as Chief Justice, as in "I ... do solemnly swear, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States."
But the author spends most of his article blathering on about things like scaling back "the reach of civil rights laws," upholding "the federal ban on ... 'partial-birth' abortion," and limiting "the ability of women to file equal-pay claims."
Has the author ever given any thot to the position of the Supreme Court relative to the other two branches of the federal government, as stated in the Constitution? The most important federal government responsibility, laying, collecting, and spending taxes is given exclusively to the legislature, the branch closest to the people, in Article I; The next most important responsibility, leading the armed forces, is given to the President in Article II, because you can't lead an army by committee.
Not until Article III do you see the Supreme Court. Besides being the last of the first three Articles, it is also the shortest, and compared to the broad responsibilities defined for the legislature and the executive, those of the Supreme Court are quite clearly defined and limited to three kinds of cases and two kinds of controversies.
No mention of interpreting the Constitution, nor deciding if laws passed by the legislature and agreed to by the President are Constitutional. These did not come up until soon after our founding, when Chief Justice John Marshall came up with 'Judicial Review'.
As useful as that constitutionally undocumented power is, it should not have been used in the Dred Scott Decision effectively saying slavery was legal everywhere and forever, nor in Plessey v. Ferguson, that said it was OK to racially segregate public transportation, and certainly not used to roundup and detain 110,000 US citizens of Japanese descent, as FDR did in 1942. And it sure shouldn’t be used to move the final word in the conduct of war from the executive to an unelected committee.
But even the specifically limited responsibilities of the Supreme Court stated in Article III of the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land, are concluded: "...with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
So much for co-equal branches.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640 773-677-3010
Chicago IL Tuesday PM, July 01, 2008 WSJ editors
Gentlepeople:
A Tuesday, July 1 letter 'Stopping Hitler Was a Good Thing' remarking on Dorothy Rabinowitz's review "Forget the Good War" of Friday , June 27 shows considerable concern with "those who would rewrite history, particularly the history of the Second World War."
History rewrites don't impress me much either, but second-guessing is something else again. In this some strategic thinking by FDR could have resulted in the most important strategy in centuries: once the Nazi-Soviet Pact of Friday August 25, 1939, was broken with Hitler's invasion of Russia starting on Sunday June 22, 1941, had we stayed out of it completely, siding with neither power, the future would have been drastically improved.
There was no way Germany could defeat Russia, since to do so would require total occupation, and Russia was just to big for Germany to occupy decisively. Similarly, Russia could never defeat the superior war-making capabilities of Hitler - they would have exhausted each other completely, leaving the rest of the world in relative peace.
This would also have been the end of Communism, preventing the Cold War and Communist China.
This would have left FDR able to attend to Japan full time, specifically the prevention/preempting on any surprise attacks.
The one thing this strategy might not have done is get us out of a depression, which FDR was unable to do in 8 years of peace. He realized this, and so did 90% of US voters. Was that worth 419,000 lost US lives? Beyond fodder for hundreds of novels, absolutely irrelevant now, and no amount of rewriting history will change that.
Arnold H. Nelson5056 North Marine Drive B-8 Chicago IL 60640773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Friday, June 27, 2008
Sunday, June 8, 2008
New York Times on Global warming and Al Gore
Chicago IL Sunday, June 8, 2008 6PM
Editors, New York Times
Gentlepeople:
An Op-Ed couldn't start out more unequivocally than Charles M. Blow's Saturday, May 31 'Farewell, Fair Weather' with: "We are now firmly ensconced in the Age of Extreme Weather."
Strange, since the rest of the piece is a cornucopia of equivocations: The second sentence: "[T]here have been more than four times as many weather-related disasters in the last 30 years than in the previous 75 years." An accompanying note defines a "weather-related disaster" as fulfilling any one of four criteria: "10 or more people killed, 100 reported affected, declaration of state of emergency, call for international assistance."
Then "The United States has experienced more of those disasters than any other country." Combining that statement with the disaster definition’s 4 points, all involving people, and the fact that the US is the world's third most peopled country... what did you expect?
Mr. Blow continues: "Last year [reports were issued] concluding that 'human influences' (read greenhouse-gas emissions) have 'more likely than not” contributed to this increase. The United States is one of the biggest producers of greenhouse-gas emissions." More likely than not? Equivocation city. Since CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas', and 6 billion people breathe it out every 10 seconds, what will you do with that? The US is 'one of the'...? Equivocation number 3. Maybe you didn't hear the first time: The US is the third most populated country in the world. More equivocations: "Furthermore, a White House report about the effect of global climate change on the United States ... reaffirmed that the situation will probably get worse: In addition to temperature extremes, “precipitation is likely to be less frequent but more intense. It is also likely that future hurricanes will become more intense, with higher peak speeds and more heavy precipitation ... .”Probably, likely, likely, equivocations 4, 5, and 6.
Then an irrelevancy: “In 2005 … the estimated damage from storms in the United States was $121 billion. That is $39 billion more than the 2005 supplemental spending bill to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.” Does the Times’ style book require Op-Eds make at least one reference to the war?
And: “About $3 billion has been allocated to assist farmers who suffer losses because of droughts, floods and tornadoes among other things.” The 2008 World Almanac says "Total US Government Agricultural Payments" have averaged $16 billion a year for the 4 years 2003-2006 - so what?
A final point: Have the climate change alarmists given any thought to their leader, the guy who won an Oscar, and a Nobel Prize, for his 'work' on climate change? How did he get so influential? Well, he was born into US political royalty, inheriting safe seats in both the House and Senate from his very astute politician father. How about his education? Again, he got into Harvard, but owes a good deal of that good fortune to his lineage. Advanced degrees? Zero! Since he's such a big deal in the ‘science’ of climate change, what's his science education background? Two courses, one something called ‘Man's place in Nature‘ ( he got a ‘D‘ in that.) This mope is a complete fraud, and anyone who follows him should be ashamed of themselves.
Arnold H. Nelson5056 North Marine DriveChicago IL 60640ah_nelson@yahoo.com 773-677-3010
Editors, New York Times
Gentlepeople:
An Op-Ed couldn't start out more unequivocally than Charles M. Blow's Saturday, May 31 'Farewell, Fair Weather' with: "We are now firmly ensconced in the Age of Extreme Weather."
Strange, since the rest of the piece is a cornucopia of equivocations: The second sentence: "[T]here have been more than four times as many weather-related disasters in the last 30 years than in the previous 75 years." An accompanying note defines a "weather-related disaster" as fulfilling any one of four criteria: "10 or more people killed, 100 reported affected, declaration of state of emergency, call for international assistance."
Then "The United States has experienced more of those disasters than any other country." Combining that statement with the disaster definition’s 4 points, all involving people, and the fact that the US is the world's third most peopled country... what did you expect?
Mr. Blow continues: "Last year [reports were issued] concluding that 'human influences' (read greenhouse-gas emissions) have 'more likely than not” contributed to this increase. The United States is one of the biggest producers of greenhouse-gas emissions." More likely than not? Equivocation city. Since CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas', and 6 billion people breathe it out every 10 seconds, what will you do with that? The US is 'one of the'...? Equivocation number 3. Maybe you didn't hear the first time: The US is the third most populated country in the world. More equivocations: "Furthermore, a White House report about the effect of global climate change on the United States ... reaffirmed that the situation will probably get worse: In addition to temperature extremes, “precipitation is likely to be less frequent but more intense. It is also likely that future hurricanes will become more intense, with higher peak speeds and more heavy precipitation ... .”Probably, likely, likely, equivocations 4, 5, and 6.
Then an irrelevancy: “In 2005 … the estimated damage from storms in the United States was $121 billion. That is $39 billion more than the 2005 supplemental spending bill to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.” Does the Times’ style book require Op-Eds make at least one reference to the war?
And: “About $3 billion has been allocated to assist farmers who suffer losses because of droughts, floods and tornadoes among other things.” The 2008 World Almanac says "Total US Government Agricultural Payments" have averaged $16 billion a year for the 4 years 2003-2006 - so what?
A final point: Have the climate change alarmists given any thought to their leader, the guy who won an Oscar, and a Nobel Prize, for his 'work' on climate change? How did he get so influential? Well, he was born into US political royalty, inheriting safe seats in both the House and Senate from his very astute politician father. How about his education? Again, he got into Harvard, but owes a good deal of that good fortune to his lineage. Advanced degrees? Zero! Since he's such a big deal in the ‘science’ of climate change, what's his science education background? Two courses, one something called ‘Man's place in Nature‘ ( he got a ‘D‘ in that.) This mope is a complete fraud, and anyone who follows him should be ashamed of themselves.
Arnold H. Nelson5056 North Marine DriveChicago IL 60640ah_nelson@yahoo.com 773-677-3010
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Letter to WSJ on their illegal immigration stand
Chicago IL Friday AM, May 30, 2008
WSJ editors
Gentlepeople:
The second sentence of the third paragraph of your Thursday, May 29 editorial 'The Menendez Method' reads: "No one wants to reward lawbreaking." Guess the first word of the next sentence. A hint, this is a Wall Street Journal editorial, so it's obviously "But", followed by the usual contortions trying to explain that there are laws, certainly, that should not be broken, but then there's those silly immigration laws, and if they threaten in any way guaranteeing a permanent class of perpetually bent-backed, low paid, agricultural workers, then so be it.
Why, if they were enforced, "growers will continue to move operations south of the border if they can't find labor in the U.S. at a price that allows growers to stay competitive."
Remember what happened to the US banana growers? Remember when red raspberries were in the store for only two weeks in June? Then better shipping techniques allowed them to be supplied near-year-round from Chile. It used to take a busload of (short) school kids to pick enough blueberries for a couple bowls of cereal and milk, now the grower calls up a guy who shows up in two days with a single machine, and whoosh, truckloads of crated blueberries.
When I read you spout this illegal immigration fetish, I can't believe I'm reading a top newspaper like the Journal. But the immediately preceding editorial starts out: "New Jersey is about the last place one might think to look for free- market policy reform," and before that: "Republicans in Congress may be out of gas, but that doesn't mean conservative ideas aren't percolating elsewhere...." page after clear thinking page of solid conservative positions.
But no, a yelp from a single southwestern lettuce grower threatening to move out if he doesn't get coolie-priced labor, and the WSJ editorial board is back in its illegal immigration fetal position. Grow up!
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive B-8 Chicago IL 60640
WSJ editors
Gentlepeople:
The second sentence of the third paragraph of your Thursday, May 29 editorial 'The Menendez Method' reads: "No one wants to reward lawbreaking." Guess the first word of the next sentence. A hint, this is a Wall Street Journal editorial, so it's obviously "But", followed by the usual contortions trying to explain that there are laws, certainly, that should not be broken, but then there's those silly immigration laws, and if they threaten in any way guaranteeing a permanent class of perpetually bent-backed, low paid, agricultural workers, then so be it.
Why, if they were enforced, "growers will continue to move operations south of the border if they can't find labor in the U.S. at a price that allows growers to stay competitive."
Remember what happened to the US banana growers? Remember when red raspberries were in the store for only two weeks in June? Then better shipping techniques allowed them to be supplied near-year-round from Chile. It used to take a busload of (short) school kids to pick enough blueberries for a couple bowls of cereal and milk, now the grower calls up a guy who shows up in two days with a single machine, and whoosh, truckloads of crated blueberries.
When I read you spout this illegal immigration fetish, I can't believe I'm reading a top newspaper like the Journal. But the immediately preceding editorial starts out: "New Jersey is about the last place one might think to look for free- market policy reform," and before that: "Republicans in Congress may be out of gas, but that doesn't mean conservative ideas aren't percolating elsewhere...." page after clear thinking page of solid conservative positions.
But no, a yelp from a single southwestern lettuce grower threatening to move out if he doesn't get coolie-priced labor, and the WSJ editorial board is back in its illegal immigration fetal position. Grow up!
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive B-8 Chicago IL 60640
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Chicago IL Saturday PM, May 3, 2008
WSJ editors
Gentlepeople:
William Tucker's Friday, May 2 'Notable and Quotable' makes a surprisingly rarely heard, but most significant point about the vast amounts of land required by the allegedly "clean, renewable, and sustainable" so-called 'green' energy sources.
An even more significant point can be made by considering that land is a two-dimensional space, and at that only 30 per cent of the earth's surface not covered by water.
Oil, on the other hand, comes from a 3-dimensional space, a space under every square inch of the earth's surface. And with all the exploration that's been done for oil, it has been significantly limited to places where it could be economically extracted, which at this time doesn't include a very major part of the 70% of the earth's surface covered by water. Add to that the constant redefinition of the economics of oil extraction by ever improving technology, and the green arguments become even less realistic. And continuing study of abiotic sources of oil (as discussed in some detail by David J. Bardin in an article "What if Methane's Inexhaustible?" in the Thursday, January 26, 1984 Wall Street Journal) make the greenies' positions yet more precarious.
Arnold H. Nelson5056 North Marine Drive B-8 Chicago IL 60640773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com
WSJ editors
Gentlepeople:
William Tucker's Friday, May 2 'Notable and Quotable' makes a surprisingly rarely heard, but most significant point about the vast amounts of land required by the allegedly "clean, renewable, and sustainable" so-called 'green' energy sources.
An even more significant point can be made by considering that land is a two-dimensional space, and at that only 30 per cent of the earth's surface not covered by water.
Oil, on the other hand, comes from a 3-dimensional space, a space under every square inch of the earth's surface. And with all the exploration that's been done for oil, it has been significantly limited to places where it could be economically extracted, which at this time doesn't include a very major part of the 70% of the earth's surface covered by water. Add to that the constant redefinition of the economics of oil extraction by ever improving technology, and the green arguments become even less realistic. And continuing study of abiotic sources of oil (as discussed in some detail by David J. Bardin in an article "What if Methane's Inexhaustible?" in the Thursday, January 26, 1984 Wall Street Journal) make the greenies' positions yet more precarious.
Arnold H. Nelson5056 North Marine Drive B-8 Chicago IL 60640773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
WSJ letter 'Billification' of HRC prez campaign article
Chicago IL Saturday PM, April 16, 2008
WSJ editors
Gentlepeople:
Your Saturday, April 26 article "He's Back; Bill Clinton gives his wife's campaign new momentum..." says Bill Clinton "has become something of a strategist-in-chief in recent weeks", "told the campaign to double the number of his daily appearances" and is "sending out fund-raising appeals, with strong results."
It almost sounds like he's running for a third term. He can't do that, can he...?
Arnold H. Nelson5056 North Marine Drive B-8 Chicago IL 60640773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com
WSJ editors
Gentlepeople:
Your Saturday, April 26 article "He's Back; Bill Clinton gives his wife's campaign new momentum..." says Bill Clinton "has become something of a strategist-in-chief in recent weeks", "told the campaign to double the number of his daily appearances" and is "sending out fund-raising appeals, with strong results."
It almost sounds like he's running for a third term. He can't do that, can he...?
Arnold H. Nelson5056 North Marine Drive B-8 Chicago IL 60640773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Letter to WSJ 04/15/08 Loopholes editorial
Chicago IL Wednesday, April 16, 2008
WSJ editors
Gentlepeople:
No one in American media comes close to the Wall Street Journal in delivering powerful editorials, but you beat even this high standard with your Tuesday, April 15, 2008 800 word "Loophole Factory"
After 700 words describing the absolute mayhem being committed by our federal legislature on their number one responsibility, taxes and spending, there is one loose end: "The losers are taxpayers who aren't powerful or rich enough to afford a tax lobbyist."
The problem here is that ever since the enactment of the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, the number of taxpayers, people who write actual checks on their personal accounts to the federal government, has dwindled to considerably less than a critical mass.
Ninety percent of voters are wage earners, and ninety percent of US wage earners do not pay income taxes. They get a statement with every pay check saying they have paid federal income taxes, but the actual dollars in that transaction came from employers'
bank accounts, not wage earners'.
Employers are certainly not happy with this situation, but don't have the votes to change it, and are able to easily pass on the expense to customers. Also, as is so well described in your editorial, many employers are the same perps demanding, and getting, all those outlandish loopholes.
So 'income taxes' become a near-painless extraction of the fed's largest source of income from the soft underbelly of a continuously growing US economy. In 230 years we have moved from violently rebelling against "taxation without representation" to acceptance of "representation without taxation", without a whimper.
The solution to this problem is not the 'Fair tax', nor repealing the 16th amendment, just a majority vote in the House of Representatives and 60 votes in the Senate, to change 11, and add 24, words deep in the federal tax code, specifically:
Change paragraph 3402 of United States Code Title 26 — 'Internal Revenue Code' Subtitle C 'Employment taxes' Chapter 24 'Collection Of Income Tax At Source On Wages (a) Requirement of withholding (1) In general...' from:
"Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or
computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary[of the Treasury]."
To: "Regardless of what is provided in this section or anywhere else in US law, every employer making payment of wages shall pay all of those wages to the employee, and calculate upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational
procedures prescribed by the Secretary[of the Treasury] and report the amount of that tax directly to the US Treasury and the employee."
Here would be a good place to add that the employee is expected to remit a personal check to the federal government for the amount of the tax before getting his next pay check.
Would this be inefficient? Sure, for an insatiable federal government, but educational for wage earner/voters, especially once they start writing checks on their own bank accounts to the feds for 20% of their last paycheck. This would result in direct responsibility for 80% of federal income being given back to those who are supposed to have it in the first place: US voters.
This could not be done over nite (as could not be done with the Fair tax either, but don't tell them.) So pick a random letter every month, and change all employees with last names beginning with that letter, to the new, real, pay-as-you-go system.
After the 26-month conversion period, every wage earner in the country would be writing a check to the feds for 20% of his pay every pay period. They would not be happy. That same period would include a re-election of all 435 members of the House and 1/3 of the Senate, that would reflect some of that voter unhappiness.
Employers could include an additional note with the pay check, suggesting the wage earner encourage their congressional candidates to bone up on Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution that lists all 18 things the congress is allowed to do, with a minor mention that the founders had no idea what future congresses would do with the 'general welfare' clause.
Unfortunately, a lot of citizens would be as outraged as the feds over this change. Rather than see it as their responsibility as citizens to have first hand experience with how much money the feds are playing with, they would want the present system to continue, where deep down, they like to feel they are getting something for nothing. Convincing them otherwise would be a major PR task, but better now then telling future generations why their nation is collapsing underneath them. 788 words
Arnold H. Nelson5056 North Marine Drive B-8 Chicago IL 60640773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com
WSJ editors
Gentlepeople:
No one in American media comes close to the Wall Street Journal in delivering powerful editorials, but you beat even this high standard with your Tuesday, April 15, 2008 800 word "Loophole Factory"
After 700 words describing the absolute mayhem being committed by our federal legislature on their number one responsibility, taxes and spending, there is one loose end: "The losers are taxpayers who aren't powerful or rich enough to afford a tax lobbyist."
The problem here is that ever since the enactment of the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, the number of taxpayers, people who write actual checks on their personal accounts to the federal government, has dwindled to considerably less than a critical mass.
Ninety percent of voters are wage earners, and ninety percent of US wage earners do not pay income taxes. They get a statement with every pay check saying they have paid federal income taxes, but the actual dollars in that transaction came from employers'
bank accounts, not wage earners'.
Employers are certainly not happy with this situation, but don't have the votes to change it, and are able to easily pass on the expense to customers. Also, as is so well described in your editorial, many employers are the same perps demanding, and getting, all those outlandish loopholes.
So 'income taxes' become a near-painless extraction of the fed's largest source of income from the soft underbelly of a continuously growing US economy. In 230 years we have moved from violently rebelling against "taxation without representation" to acceptance of "representation without taxation", without a whimper.
The solution to this problem is not the 'Fair tax', nor repealing the 16th amendment, just a majority vote in the House of Representatives and 60 votes in the Senate, to change 11, and add 24, words deep in the federal tax code, specifically:
Change paragraph 3402 of United States Code Title 26 — 'Internal Revenue Code' Subtitle C 'Employment taxes' Chapter 24 'Collection Of Income Tax At Source On Wages (a) Requirement of withholding (1) In general...' from:
"Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or
computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary[of the Treasury]."
To: "Regardless of what is provided in this section or anywhere else in US law, every employer making payment of wages shall pay all of those wages to the employee, and calculate upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational
procedures prescribed by the Secretary[of the Treasury] and report the amount of that tax directly to the US Treasury and the employee."
Here would be a good place to add that the employee is expected to remit a personal check to the federal government for the amount of the tax before getting his next pay check.
Would this be inefficient? Sure, for an insatiable federal government, but educational for wage earner/voters, especially once they start writing checks on their own bank accounts to the feds for 20% of their last paycheck. This would result in direct responsibility for 80% of federal income being given back to those who are supposed to have it in the first place: US voters.
This could not be done over nite (as could not be done with the Fair tax either, but don't tell them.) So pick a random letter every month, and change all employees with last names beginning with that letter, to the new, real, pay-as-you-go system.
After the 26-month conversion period, every wage earner in the country would be writing a check to the feds for 20% of his pay every pay period. They would not be happy. That same period would include a re-election of all 435 members of the House and 1/3 of the Senate, that would reflect some of that voter unhappiness.
Employers could include an additional note with the pay check, suggesting the wage earner encourage their congressional candidates to bone up on Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution that lists all 18 things the congress is allowed to do, with a minor mention that the founders had no idea what future congresses would do with the 'general welfare' clause.
Unfortunately, a lot of citizens would be as outraged as the feds over this change. Rather than see it as their responsibility as citizens to have first hand experience with how much money the feds are playing with, they would want the present system to continue, where deep down, they like to feel they are getting something for nothing. Convincing them otherwise would be a major PR task, but better now then telling future generations why their nation is collapsing underneath them. 788 words
Arnold H. Nelson5056 North Marine Drive B-8 Chicago IL 60640773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
