...but I forget to look for it, and did not see it in the actual paper.Saturday, November 1, 2008
My first letter in UK Financial Times...
...but I forget to look for it, and did not see it in the actual paper.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Peggy Noonan on Palin's Failin'
Another letter WSJ didn't have the you-know-whats to print (well, maybe sending it in 11 days after the subject column was printed may have had something to do with that.)
Chicago ILTuesday, October 28, 2008
Wall Street Journal Letters
Gentlepeople:
In her Friday, October 17, 2008 column "Palin's Failin'" Peggy Noonan writes of "a man who came from nowhere.... Harry S. Truman.... [y]ou have to give people time to show what they have."
Then she complains "... we have seen Mrs. Palin on the national stage for seven weeks now, and there is little sign that she has the tools... one hopes for in a holder of high office."
Palin doesn't have the tools for high office? She has infinitely more management experience than the other three candidates put together, since their buck-stops-here decision making responsibilities are limited to deciding where their senate office staff Christmas parties will be.
What had Truman shown on May 31, 1945, seven weeks after he had been "thrust into power by a careless FDR..."? Germany had surrendered on May 7, but even HST took no particular credit for that.
But have you noticed those crowds Sarah draws, Ms. Noonan? And the numbers of conservatives, formerly ice cold about McCain, now gritting their teeth, determined to vote for him whatever.
Better yet, have you noticed the opposition? They are appoplectic, appearing sometimes to be addressing Sarah more than John whats-his-name. They were even driven to claiming Sarah's crowds were yelling stuff like "kill him", quickly proven absolutely baseless.
Then Peggy goes on a tirade about "candidates... dropping their G's. Hardworkin' families are strainin' and tryin'a get ahead." And saying 'Mom and Dad' instead of 'mothers and fathers....'" asking "Do politicians ever remember that ... our children ...look to political figures for a model as to how adults sound?"
We are faced with the strong possibility of electing a president who is an out-and-out radical socialist, whose experience is limited to four grueling pre-teen years of slogging thru the mud of Indonesia, eight years as a state senator (a job requiring no more talant than a Chicago Bears 3rd string jock strap attendant (without the responsibility,) and work as a 'Community activist', AKA in Chicago as junior precinct captain ("Here sonny, a list of voters - if they don't on election day, your 'community activist' career is over!")
And Peggy Noonan is worried about politicians dropping their G's?
There's a lot of G droppin' out here west of the Hudson, Peggy.Sometimes we even idiomatically use the gramatical abortion "Who's kidding who".
Noonan concludes with a critical reference to "...Christopher Buckley... shooed from the great magazine his father invented."
Christopher Buckley was dropped because that magazine has no room for someone who openly backs a candidate who will nationalize every inch of the private sector he can, will name SCOTUS justices who will back those efforts for the next 40 years, and who would feel better if the United States were the weakest nation on earth instead of the strongest.
Arnold H
ah_nelson@yahoo.com
PS At least I don't need to waste time reading another Noonan column after 10/17/2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago ILTuesday, October 28, 2008
Wall Street Journal Letters
Gentlepeople:
In her Friday, October 17, 2008 column "Palin's Failin'" Peggy Noonan writes of "a man who came from nowhere.... Harry S. Truman.... [y]ou have to give people time to show what they have."
Then she complains "... we have seen Mrs. Palin on the national stage for seven weeks now, and there is little sign that she has the tools... one hopes for in a holder of high office."
Palin doesn't have the tools for high office? She has infinitely more management experience than the other three candidates put together, since their buck-stops-here decision making responsibilities are limited to deciding where their senate office staff Christmas parties will be.
What had Truman shown on May 31, 1945, seven weeks after he had been "thrust into power by a careless FDR..."? Germany had surrendered on May 7, but even HST took no particular credit for that.
But have you noticed those crowds Sarah draws, Ms. Noonan? And the numbers of conservatives, formerly ice cold about McCain, now gritting their teeth, determined to vote for him whatever.
Better yet, have you noticed the opposition? They are appoplectic, appearing sometimes to be addressing Sarah more than John whats-his-name. They were even driven to claiming Sarah's crowds were yelling stuff like "kill him", quickly proven absolutely baseless.
Then Peggy goes on a tirade about "candidates... dropping their G's. Hardworkin' families are strainin' and tryin'a get ahead." And saying 'Mom and Dad' instead of 'mothers and fathers....'" asking "Do politicians ever remember that ... our children ...look to political figures for a model as to how adults sound?"
We are faced with the strong possibility of electing a president who is an out-and-out radical socialist, whose experience is limited to four grueling pre-teen years of slogging thru the mud of Indonesia, eight years as a state senator (a job requiring no more talant than a Chicago Bears 3rd string jock strap attendant (without the responsibility,) and work as a 'Community activist', AKA in Chicago as junior precinct captain ("Here sonny, a list of voters - if they don't on election day, your 'community activist' career is over!")
And Peggy Noonan is worried about politicians dropping their G's?
There's a lot of G droppin' out here west of the Hudson, Peggy.Sometimes we even idiomatically use the gramatical abortion "Who's kidding who".
Noonan concludes with a critical reference to "...Christopher Buckley... shooed from the great magazine his father invented."
Christopher Buckley was dropped because that magazine has no room for someone who openly backs a candidate who will nationalize every inch of the private sector he can, will name SCOTUS justices who will back those efforts for the next 40 years, and who would feel better if the United States were the weakest nation on earth instead of the strongest.
Arnold H
ah_nelson@yahoo.com
PS At least I don't need to waste time reading another Noonan column after 10/17/2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, October 10, 2008
WSJ letter: Forty per cent of Americans don't pay income taxes?
Chicago Friday evening, October 10, 2008
Wall Street Journal Letters
Gentlepeople:
The fifth sentence of Kimberley Strassel's Friday, October 10, 2008 delightful sendup of Barack Obama's outlandish rhetoric says that "...40% of Americans today don't pay income taxes!" Ms. Strassel, it's considerably worse than even that. The only Americans who can too easily give Senator Obama the chance to do all this damage are voters.
Ninety per cent of voters are wage earners, but thanks to the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, 90% of wage earners don't pay any income taxes. They get statements that say they do, but the actual check that goes to DC is written on an employer bank account. If that check doesn't make it to the federal coffers, the employer goes to jail, never the wage earner. Employers are certainly not happy with this situation, but don't have the votes to fix it. But they really don't need them since they can pass on this expense to consumers, effectively sucking the largest single contribution to federal income from the soft underbelly of a continuously expanding national economy. In 230 years, we have gone from rebelling against 'taxation without representation' to meekly accepting 'representation w/o taxation.'
So voters could care less about the government bailing out any number of careless lending institutions and underfunded real estate borrowers, as long as they continue get their entitlements (and how they line up for those entitlements!)
This problem could be fixed with a simple change to 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...." 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...."
The rest of the paragraph stays the same: employers calculate the tax, and inform the feds what they should expect to get from the wage earner, and the wage earner of what he is expecteed to deliver to the feds. 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 every month 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. Like the 'Fair Tax', this could not be done overnite (neither could the FT, but don't tell its supporters that.) So have a monthly drawing of a single letter from the 26: Every wage earner who's last name begins w/ that letter gets converted that month from having income taxes withheld to sending in their own check.
This would be a good example of the frog in the slowly heating water: After 26 months, every wage earner would actually be paying his/her really fair share. And as it stands now, they would be very unhappy w/ that. The 26-month conversion period would conveniently include a reelection of all 435 house members, and 1/3 of Senators. The results of that election would reflect the wage earners' unhappiness w/ finally feeling what it's like to actually pay income taxes. And they would pay a lot more attention to the magician antics of a Barack Obama.
Arnold H Nelson5056 North Marine DriveChicago IL
Wall Street Journal Letters
Gentlepeople:
The fifth sentence of Kimberley Strassel's Friday, October 10, 2008 delightful sendup of Barack Obama's outlandish rhetoric says that "...40% of Americans today don't pay income taxes!" Ms. Strassel, it's considerably worse than even that. The only Americans who can too easily give Senator Obama the chance to do all this damage are voters.
Ninety per cent of voters are wage earners, but thanks to the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, 90% of wage earners don't pay any income taxes. They get statements that say they do, but the actual check that goes to DC is written on an employer bank account. If that check doesn't make it to the federal coffers, the employer goes to jail, never the wage earner. Employers are certainly not happy with this situation, but don't have the votes to fix it. But they really don't need them since they can pass on this expense to consumers, effectively sucking the largest single contribution to federal income from the soft underbelly of a continuously expanding national economy. In 230 years, we have gone from rebelling against 'taxation without representation' to meekly accepting 'representation w/o taxation.'
So voters could care less about the government bailing out any number of careless lending institutions and underfunded real estate borrowers, as long as they continue get their entitlements (and how they line up for those entitlements!)
This problem could be fixed with a simple change to 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...." 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...."
The rest of the paragraph stays the same: employers calculate the tax, and inform the feds what they should expect to get from the wage earner, and the wage earner of what he is expecteed to deliver to the feds. 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 every month 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. Like the 'Fair Tax', this could not be done overnite (neither could the FT, but don't tell its supporters that.) So have a monthly drawing of a single letter from the 26: Every wage earner who's last name begins w/ that letter gets converted that month from having income taxes withheld to sending in their own check.
This would be a good example of the frog in the slowly heating water: After 26 months, every wage earner would actually be paying his/her really fair share. And as it stands now, they would be very unhappy w/ that. The 26-month conversion period would conveniently include a reelection of all 435 house members, and 1/3 of Senators. The results of that election would reflect the wage earners' unhappiness w/ finally feeling what it's like to actually pay income taxes. And they would pay a lot more attention to the magician antics of a Barack Obama.
Arnold H Nelson5056 North Marine DriveChicago IL
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Letter to NYTimes on Joe Biden
Chicago Saturday AM, September 21, 2008
New York Times letters 349 words
Gentlepeople:
The Saturday, September 20 New York Times article "Meanwhile, the Other No. 2 Keeps On Punching" is a well written, interesting take on an interesting guy. Describing Joe Biden as "a distinctive blend of pit bull and odd duck" and "part of the national political furniture for decades" is delicious.
But what seems strange is all but non-existent mention of why Joe Biden got this position. Buried deep in the article is the statement that Biden lends "foreign policy heft to Senator Barack Obama" and a guy whose foreign policy experience is limited to four crucial pre-teen years slogging through the mud of Indonesia sure needs that.
But a careful read of Biden's official biography at Congress.gov might explain the dearth. It mentions only six things Biden has actually done in his government career:
--- represented the state of DE in the US Senate since 1972
... wrote and passed the Violence Against Women Act
... authored the Rail Security Act of 2007
... authored a Senate resolution endorsing air war in Kosovo
... Authored and passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
and the 2007 Biden Crime Bill
Beyond those six measurable accomplishments, every thing else is qualified with words like "His leadership", "is recognized as", "is one of the nation's most influential voices on", “is credited with” or "has earned a rep for".
This is pretty thin stuff. Wouldn't you think that if he actually had made some real marks in foreign relations, they would be mentioned in an official on-line biography?
To Senator Biden’s credit, of the 900 words in that official biography, 214 are about foreign policy, but not too far behind are 176 words about his state, and then 168 on his personal life (and to keep readers‘ minds from wandering, 27 of those 900 words are ‘Biden‘, 22 of those immediately preceeded by ‘Senator‘.)
To the biographer's credit, it ends up on some high notes: Biden "serves as a good example for everyone in Congress", "is a good listener" and "has a very broad, comprehensive view of the world."
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
New York Times letters 349 words
Gentlepeople:
The Saturday, September 20 New York Times article "Meanwhile, the Other No. 2 Keeps On Punching" is a well written, interesting take on an interesting guy. Describing Joe Biden as "a distinctive blend of pit bull and odd duck" and "part of the national political furniture for decades" is delicious.
But what seems strange is all but non-existent mention of why Joe Biden got this position. Buried deep in the article is the statement that Biden lends "foreign policy heft to Senator Barack Obama" and a guy whose foreign policy experience is limited to four crucial pre-teen years slogging through the mud of Indonesia sure needs that.
But a careful read of Biden's official biography at Congress.gov might explain the dearth. It mentions only six things Biden has actually done in his government career:
--- represented the state of DE in the US Senate since 1972
... wrote and passed the Violence Against Women Act
... authored the Rail Security Act of 2007
... authored a Senate resolution endorsing air war in Kosovo
... Authored and passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
and the 2007 Biden Crime Bill
Beyond those six measurable accomplishments, every thing else is qualified with words like "His leadership", "is recognized as", "is one of the nation's most influential voices on", “is credited with” or "has earned a rep for".
This is pretty thin stuff. Wouldn't you think that if he actually had made some real marks in foreign relations, they would be mentioned in an official on-line biography?
To Senator Biden’s credit, of the 900 words in that official biography, 214 are about foreign policy, but not too far behind are 176 words about his state, and then 168 on his personal life (and to keep readers‘ minds from wandering, 27 of those 900 words are ‘Biden‘, 22 of those immediately preceeded by ‘Senator‘.)
To the biographer's credit, it ends up on some high notes: Biden "serves as a good example for everyone in Congress", "is a good listener" and "has a very broad, comprehensive view of the world."
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Letter to, and response from, WSJ
Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:22 DT
Subject: Does the Journal have trouble with apostrophes, too?
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
A paragraph titled 'Thailand' in your fine Thursday, August 21 article "When [Olympic] Gold Turns Green" refers to a Thai weight lifter: "The 24-year-old is the countries lone gold of these Games."
"Countries"? Say it ain't so, WSJ. Since it's the possessive of "country" not a number of "countries", it should be "country's", not "countries".
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:57 From: "Martin-Sr, Paul" To: ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: Does the Journal have trouble with apostrophes, too?
Mr. Nelson:
Thank you for your note about the misuse of “countries” for “country’s” in the Journal article.
We appreciate readers like you who hold us to high standards -- especially when their notes are as gracious as yours.
Sincerely, Paul Martin WSJ stylebook editor
Subject: Does the Journal have trouble with apostrophes, too?
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
A paragraph titled 'Thailand' in your fine Thursday, August 21 article "When [Olympic] Gold Turns Green" refers to a Thai weight lifter: "The 24-year-old is the countries lone gold of these Games."
"Countries"? Say it ain't so, WSJ. Since it's the possessive of "country" not a number of "countries", it should be "country's", not "countries".
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:57 From: "Martin-Sr, Paul" To: ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: Does the Journal have trouble with apostrophes, too?
Mr. Nelson:
Thank you for your note about the misuse of “countries” for “country’s” in the Journal article.
We appreciate readers like you who hold us to high standards -- especially when their notes are as gracious as yours.
Sincerely, Paul Martin WSJ stylebook editor
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Letter to WSJ on "unsubstantiated charges and smears"
Chicago, Wednesday PM, August 20, 2008
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
In the Wednesday, August 20 Notable and Quotable, Peter Wehner, writing about Jerome Corsi's Obama biography, says "it's wrong to throw out unsubstantiated charges and smears against Senator Obama."
This WSJ feature is limited in length. This one is 160 words, but a recent one is 280 words. Wouldn't 120 additional words be plenty for Mr. Wehner to give just one example of an actual "unsubstantiated charge" or "smear". I haven't read Mr. Corsi's book, but I understand it is heavily sourced. It should be easy for Mr. Wehner to demonstrate such a sweeping statement, for the sake of his own credibility.
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
In the Wednesday, August 20 Notable and Quotable, Peter Wehner, writing about Jerome Corsi's Obama biography, says "it's wrong to throw out unsubstantiated charges and smears against Senator Obama."
This WSJ feature is limited in length. This one is 160 words, but a recent one is 280 words. Wouldn't 120 additional words be plenty for Mr. Wehner to give just one example of an actual "unsubstantiated charge" or "smear". I haven't read Mr. Corsi's book, but I understand it is heavily sourced. It should be easy for Mr. Wehner to demonstrate such a sweeping statement, for the sake of his own credibility.
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Why & how to eliminate income tax withholding 528 words
Chicago Saturday evening 20 September 2008
Wall Street Journal letters
Gentlepeople:
A letter in the Thursday, September 18 WSJ "'We the People' in Paying and spending taxes" makes an excellent point on how the decrease in the number of people actually paying federal income taxes has a significant downside. But that downside is even more dangerous than even the writer says.
Ninety per cent of voters are wage earners, but thanks to the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, 90% of wage earners don't pay any income taxes. They get statements that say they did, but the actual check that goes to DC is written on an employer bank account.
Employers are certainly not happy with this situation, but don't have the votes to fix it. But they really don't need to since they can pass on this expense to consumers, effectively sucking the largest single contribution to federal income from the soft underbelly of a continuously expanding national economy. In 230 years, we have gone from rebelling against 'taxation without representation' to meekly accepting 'representation w/o taxation.'
So voters could care less about the government bailing out any number of careless lending institutions and underfunded real estate borrowers, as long as they continue get their entitlements (and how they line up for those entitlements!)
This problem could be fixed with a simple change to 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...."
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...."
The rest of the paragraph stays the same: employers calculate the tax, and inform both the wage earner and the feds.
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 every month 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.
Like the 'Fair Tax', this could not be done overnite (neither could the FT, but don't tell its supporters that.)
So have a monthly drawing of a single letter from the 26: Every wage earner who's last name begins w/ that letter gets converted that month from having income taxes withheld to sending in their own check ( a real pay-as-you-go collection system.)
This would be a good application of the frog in the slowly heating water: After 26 months, every wage earner would actually be paying his/her really fair share. And they would be very unhappy with that.
The 26-month conversion period would conveniently include reelection of all 435 house members, and 1/3 of Senators. I think the results of that election would reflect the wage earners' unhappiness with finally feeling what it's like to actually pay income taxes.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive B-8 Chicago IL 60640
Wall Street Journal letters
Gentlepeople:
A letter in the Thursday, September 18 WSJ "'We the People' in Paying and spending taxes" makes an excellent point on how the decrease in the number of people actually paying federal income taxes has a significant downside. But that downside is even more dangerous than even the writer says.
Ninety per cent of voters are wage earners, but thanks to the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, 90% of wage earners don't pay any income taxes. They get statements that say they did, but the actual check that goes to DC is written on an employer bank account.
Employers are certainly not happy with this situation, but don't have the votes to fix it. But they really don't need to since they can pass on this expense to consumers, effectively sucking the largest single contribution to federal income from the soft underbelly of a continuously expanding national economy. In 230 years, we have gone from rebelling against 'taxation without representation' to meekly accepting 'representation w/o taxation.'
So voters could care less about the government bailing out any number of careless lending institutions and underfunded real estate borrowers, as long as they continue get their entitlements (and how they line up for those entitlements!)
This problem could be fixed with a simple change to 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...."
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...."
The rest of the paragraph stays the same: employers calculate the tax, and inform both the wage earner and the feds.
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 every month 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.
Like the 'Fair Tax', this could not be done overnite (neither could the FT, but don't tell its supporters that.)
So have a monthly drawing of a single letter from the 26: Every wage earner who's last name begins w/ that letter gets converted that month from having income taxes withheld to sending in their own check ( a real pay-as-you-go collection system.)
This would be a good application of the frog in the slowly heating water: After 26 months, every wage earner would actually be paying his/her really fair share. And they would be very unhappy with that.
The 26-month conversion period would conveniently include reelection of all 435 house members, and 1/3 of Senators. I think the results of that election would reflect the wage earners' unhappiness with finally feeling what it's like to actually pay income taxes.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive B-8 Chicago IL 60640
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
