WSJ Thomas Frank strikes out again

Chicago Wednesday AM January 6, 2010

Editors, The Wall Street Journal

Gentlepeople:

Wall Street Journal columnist Thomas Frank complains in his Tuesday, January 5 column “Watch Out for GOP Populism” of Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan fondly recalling “the great deregulatory campaigns of the past (leaving out the embarrassing story of how he and his colleagues overturned Glass-Steagall and then watched the banking industry explode in a fireball of freedom).”

Mr. Frank does a little 'leaving out' of his own, ignoring the Thursday, Nov 15, 1999 Wall Street Journal article ”Clinton Signs Financial-Services Bill, But Cautions About Privacy Shortfalls” in which the President glowingly describes the financial-services overhaul as "truly historic."

If the bill would cause the banking industry to “explode in a fireball of freedom” why wouldn't an all-knowing Democrat President veto it? It had a substantial veto-proof majority in the House, but a comfortable veto-sustaining 44 votes in the Senate.

Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640 ah_nelson@yahoo.com

People treated fairly more likely to pay taxes?

Chicago IL USA Thursday PM January 7, 2010

Editors, The Financial Times

Gentlepeople:

The Financial Times letter “Treat people fairly and they're more likely to pay taxes” (Thursday, January 7) makes excellent, sincere points. But the main problem in the US could be that so few people are paying taxes with checks drawn on their personal accounts.

In 2007, the federal government took in a total of $2.692 trillion, 62% of which was withheld from wages (2009 Statistical Abstract of US, table #462.) So nearly 2/3 of all the actual dollars that came into the US general fund were from employer bank accounts, not employee's.

Employers pass all this on to customers in higher prices, resulting in almost 2/3 of federal income coming from an invisible national sales tax. This hoax has been going on since the 1943 Current Tax Payment Act, but a regularly expanding national economy makes it painless to voters.

This problem could be corrected by changing paragraph 3402 of USC Title 26 — 'Internal Revenue Code' Subtitle C 'Employment taxes' Chapter 24 'Collection Of Income Tax At Source On Wages'... 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, replacing the reassuring (but thoroly misleading) note "you earned and your employer paid" with "here is what the feds are expecting from you within 30 days"

Would this be inefficient? Certainly for an insatiable federal bureaucracy. But writing a check on their personal bank accounts to the Federal Government every month for 20% of their take-home pay would give citizens all the incentive needed to vote for politicians they feel most likely to treat them fairly.

Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640 USA ah_nelson@yahoo.com

Maybe he[Obama] can't?!?

Chicago Saturday PM 16 January 2010

Editors, The UK Financial Times

Gentlepeople:

The Financial Times' Edward Luce opens his Friday, January 15 “Maybe he can't” column quoting Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel that “a moment of great crisis was also an opportunity” and "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Further on Mr. Luce quotes another Democrat, former majority leader Dick Gephardt: "Detroit reminded us that Obama is one bomb away from a failed presidency." These two quotes unfortunately show that to post-FDR Democrats, party success/failure is more important than that of the country.

Mr Luce then compares Rahm Emanuel's “support for a 'big bang' approach to the legislative agenda” to the “sweeping reforms FDR initiated in his first spell in office” And certainly one of those 'sweeping reforms' was the Social Security myth, that somewhere in DC is a huge pile of money waiting for citizens to retire and live on. There's a huge pile, all right, of bonds saying “Future citizens will pay...” but as the US Supreme Court said in its 1960 Fleming vs Nestor decision:

" To engraft upon the Social Security System a concept of "accrued property rights" would deprive it of the flexibility... in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands and which Congress probably had in mind when it expressly reserved the right to alter, amend or repeal any provision of the Act.”

Mr. Luce closes his lamentable column quoting a 'prominent liberal supporter of Mr Obama': "I think on most fronts, he is doing all that he can."

What all can you expect someone to do whose international experience was limited to five crucial pre-teen years slogging thru the mud of Indonesia; work experience shared between 'community organizing' (a Chicago euphemism for Democrat vote hustling,) Illinois state senator (a job requiring no more skill than a Chicago Bears' jock strap attendant, without the responsibility) and non-tenured college instructor in constitutional law? Overnite you give the responsibility of choosing people to fill the highest, most influential jobs in the country, to someone who never hired anyone more consequential than a baby sitter, the responsibility of making major economic decisions to someone who has never met a private-sector payroll . What can you expect him to do?

Anyone with the single skill of unmatched mastery of a communication device unknown before 1982, but without the potential of becoming the first black US president,, would have needed to buy their own ticket to Iowa in January 2007, then been fortunate to be met by their grandmother.

Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640 ah_nelson@yahoo.com

UK Financial Times on 'Game Change'

Chicago Wednesday AM January 20, 2010

Editors, The Financial Times

Gentlepeople:

In The Financial Times' Edward Luce's Tuesday, January 19 article “A delicious tale of monstrous egos” it's hard to tell who's having more fun: The authors of “Game Change” delivering stuff like “[John] Edwards... a rampant narcissist ….” or Luce lapping up “John McCain... Joe Lieberman... and Lindsey Graham... watching 'the legendary four-minute YouTube clip of John Edwards vainly fussing over his hair in a TV studio.”

Luce takes particular delight in repeating the “shocking tale... about Sarah Palin... so uninformed... that advisors had to give her junior school tutorials on the first and second world wars, Vietnam and the cold war.”

Surely an accomplished writer/commentator like Mr. Luce is aware that altho books are printed to distribute the truth, they are primarily printed to make money – if a little truth-tweaking will make more money, what will the market bear? And if a little truth-tweaking works, how about an occasional whopper?

Does Mr. Luce actually believe that someone who made buck-stops-here decisions for 21 months as a state governor (21 months more than the other three 2008 major party candidates... combined!) , was chairman of the Alaska State Oil and Gas Conservation Commission for 2 years, and even mayor of a town of 10K people for 6 years, didn't know about world war II? Here we have politicians who hate Palin telling a tale to writers who also hate her, passing it on to a third hater, who manages to get away with having it printed in a major world newspaper. Might there be a little credibility gap somewhere in there?

And did it occur to Mr. Luce that Barack Obama might owe his “ability to keep his head when all around are losing theirs” to the fact that the most responsible job he had in his life before January 20, 2009 was a 'Community Organizer' (Chicago euphemism for Democrat vote hustler )?

Mr. Luce and the Financial Times need to get hold of themselves – a little reality check is never wasted.

Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640 USA ah_nelson@yahoo.com

Letter to UK Financial Times on BHO State of the Union editorial

Saturday, January 30, 2010 4:14 PM

From: "Arnold Nelson"

To: "Financial Times Letters"

Chicago USA Saturday PM 30 January 2010

Editors, UK Financial Times

Gentlepeople:

A Financial Times Friday January 29 editorial on the US President's State of the Union Address is strangely titled “Obama sticks firmly to his guns.” Strange in using a military allusion to describe a speech by someone whose military experience is limited to watching an occasional parade. You use the same questionable allusion further when you credit Mr Obama for showing “coolness under fire .”

You say “The speech was light on populism and heavy on civility.”

You call a President claiming “the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that … will open the floodgates for special interests” civil? The first amendment prohibits Congress from making any law restricting the practice of religion, speech, the press, and “the right of the people to peaceably assemble....” What can be more peaceable than people assembling to forward common goals, uncoerced, funded by their own individual contributions? If Obama wants to change that, he should submit an amendment repealing article III.

Then: “Mr Obama answered the call that he should emphasise "jobs, jobs, jobs." What does Obama know about jobs when the only significant job he ever had before January 20 was as a 'Community Organizer” a Chicago euphemism for Democrat vote hustler. The only people he has ever hired were baby sitters.

The only skill this president has is his unmatched reading of speeches written by others from a device invented only 28 years ago. A non-black individual with that limited resume would have needed to buy his own ticket to Iowa in 2007, and been lucky to be met by his grandmother.

Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago 60640 USA ah_nelson@yahoo.com

Maybe a little anger management needed for the IPCC chairman?

Chicago IL USA Sunday PM 7 February 2010

Editors, the UK Financial Times

Gentlepeople:

The Financial Times Thursday, February 4 article "UN scientist hits at 'skulduggery'" quotes IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri venting the righteous indignation (climate change sceptics' criticism is "skulduggery of the worst kind") of someone who has hard disks of climate data and more hard disks of mathematical models to run it through proving that the planet is on its way to becoming uninhabitable because of 'global warming' or some such.

Mr. Pachauri would be wise to consider another, quite simple model: projecting the 4.5 billion year age of the earth onto a more easily comprehended 80-year human lifetime. Such a model shows one year of earth time the equivalent of 0.562 seconds of 'geezer time' (this can be demonstrated by calculating the number of seconds in 80 years, dividing by 0.562, resulting in... 4.5 billion.)

This puts Galileo's 1593 invention of the thermometer (an absolutely necessary tool in the climate measuring game) at slightly less than 4 minutes ago to the geezer. Another necessary tool: a human being to read the thermometer, didn't get here until 6 million years ago – 5 weeks 4 days in geezer time.

Doesn't it seem reasonable that regardless of how much that climate data is massaged by any number of those models, any number of times, it can show no more than the planet continuing to do what it did just fine without any human intervention for the first 99.87% of its life span?

Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640 USA

UK Financial Times letter on Global Warming model

Chicago IL USA Sunday PM 7 February 2010

Editors, the UK Financial Times

Gentlepeople:

The Financial Times Thursday, February 4 article "UN scientist hits at 'skulduggery'" quotes IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri venting the righteous indignation (climate change sceptics' criticism is "skulduggery of the worst kind") of someone who has hard disks of climate data and more hard disks of mathematical models to run it through proving that the planet is on its way to becoming uninhabitable because of 'global warming' or some such.

Mr. Pachauri would be wise to consider another, quite simple model: projecting the 4.5 billion year age of the earth onto a more easily comprehended 80-year human lifetime. Such a model shows one year of earth time the equivalent of 0.562 seconds of 'geezer time' (this can be demonstrated by calculating the number of seconds in 80 years, dividing by 0.562, resulting in... 4.5 billion.)

This puts Galileo's 1593 invention of the thermometer (an absolutely necessary tool in the climate measuring game) at slightly less than 4 minutes ago to the geezer. Another necessary tool: a human being to read the thermometer, didn't get here until 6 million years ago – 5 weeks 4 days in geezer time.

Doesn't it seem reasonable that regardless of how much that climate data is massaged by any number of those models, any number of times, it can show no more than the planet continuing to do what it did just fine without any human intervention for the first 99.87% of its life span?

Arnold H Nelson

5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640 USA

773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com