"A little rebellion now and then is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison
Letters to the Editor
Print Media :
The River Cities Tribune - Marble Falls, TX The Highlander - Marble Falls, TX
The Burnet Bulletin - Burnet, TX The Beacon - Horseshoe Bay, TX
The Austin Statesman - Austin, TX The Llano County Journal - Llano, TX
Lampasas Dispatch Record - Lampasas, TX Johnson City Record Courier - Johnson City, TX
Williamson County Sun - Georgetown, TX The Seguin Gazette - Seguin, TX
New Braunfels Herald-Zeitung - New Braunfels, TX The Dallas Morning News - Dallas, TX
San Antonio Express-News - San Antonio, TX The New York Times - New York, NY
Gonzales Cannon - Gonzales, TX Waco Tribune - Waco, TX
Temple Daily Telegram - Temple, TX
The River Cities Tribune - Marble Falls, TX The Highlander - Marble Falls, TX
The Burnet Bulletin - Burnet, TX The Beacon - Horseshoe Bay, TX
The Austin Statesman - Austin, TX The Llano County Journal - Llano, TX
Lampasas Dispatch Record - Lampasas, TX Johnson City Record Courier - Johnson City, TX
Williamson County Sun - Georgetown, TX The Seguin Gazette - Seguin, TX
New Braunfels Herald-Zeitung - New Braunfels, TX The Dallas Morning News - Dallas, TX
San Antonio Express-News - San Antonio, TX The New York Times - New York, NY
Gonzales Cannon - Gonzales, TX Waco Tribune - Waco, TX
Temple Daily Telegram - Temple, TX
May, 2012
Contributors: Dolores Guinn Mike Henry
April, 2012
contributors: Alice Chapel Stephen Baird
Sam Shelton in his letter titled “Affordable a Lie” is uninformed about the Affordable Care Act. He says the new law is neither affordable nor caring, claiming it will cost the taxpayer twice what we were told when it was passed. The truth is that the Affordable Care Act does not increase the budget deficit and it will enable 30 million currently uninsured Americans to be able to afford to purchase insurance. The recent non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis can be found on the web at http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43104.
Mr. Shelton’s assertion that the mandates contained in the law will push private health insurance rates to higher, unaffordable levels is a false, pants-on-fire whopper. Here is what the CBO had to say about the effect of the Affordable Care Act on insurance premiums: “CBO estimates that health reform will have a small effect on premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance in the near term and will most likely reduce them. For employers with more than 50 workers (who account for 70 percent of the total insurance market), CBO estimates that the law will reduce average premiums in 2016 by between 0 and 3 percent. For small employers (who make up 13 percent of the market), the estimated change in premiums ranges from an increase of 1 percent to a reduction of 2 percent.” Source: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3362
Stephen Baird - 4/28/12
San Antonio Express-News
Mr. Shelton’s assertion that the mandates contained in the law will push private health insurance rates to higher, unaffordable levels is a false, pants-on-fire whopper. Here is what the CBO had to say about the effect of the Affordable Care Act on insurance premiums: “CBO estimates that health reform will have a small effect on premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance in the near term and will most likely reduce them. For employers with more than 50 workers (who account for 70 percent of the total insurance market), CBO estimates that the law will reduce average premiums in 2016 by between 0 and 3 percent. For small employers (who make up 13 percent of the market), the estimated change in premiums ranges from an increase of 1 percent to a reduction of 2 percent.” Source: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3362
Stephen Baird - 4/28/12
San Antonio Express-News
Sam Shelton in his letter titled “Affordable a Lie” is uninformed about the Affordable Care Act. He says the new law is neither affordable nor caring, claiming it will cost the taxpayer twice what we were told when it was passed. The truth is that the Affordable Care Act does not increase the budget deficit and it will enable 30 million currently uninsured Americans to be able to afford to purchase insurance. The recent non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis can be found on the web at http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43104.
Mr. Shelton’s assertion that the mandates contained in the law will push private health insurance rates to higher, unaffordable levels is a false, pants-on-fire whopper. Here is what the CBO had to say about the effect of the Affordable Care Act on insurance premiums: “CBO estimates that health reform will have a small effect on premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance in the near term and will most likely reduce them. For employers with more than 50 workers (who account for 70 percent of the total insurance market), CBO estimates that the law will reduce average premiums in 2016 by between 0 and 3 percent. For small employers (who make up 13 percent of the market), the estimated change in premiums ranges from an increase of 1 percent to a reduction of 2 percent.” Source: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3362
Stephen Baird -
San Antonio Express-News
4-14-12
No good defense
This may be a bit anti-climactic, but considering the ruckus the Fluke/Limbaugh controversy has caused and the fact it is still being discussed, this begs to be said. I was disappointed to hear that some of my Christian friends felt they had to defend Rush Limbaugh for claiming Fluke was a slut. They believe her speech made it sound like she was having sex indiscriminately.
Well, even if Fluke was having sex indiscriminately, to Christians, that doesn't make her a slut, just a sinner.
I guess they either forgot the story of Jesus and the woman at the well or they feel that Limbaugh, with his four wives and Oxycontin problem is worthy of casting the first stone.
Alice Chapel,
Spring Branch
This may be a bit anti-climactic, but considering the ruckus the Fluke/Limbaugh controversy has caused and the fact it is still being discussed, this begs to be said. I was disappointed to hear that some of my Christian friends felt they had to defend Rush Limbaugh for claiming Fluke was a slut. They believe her speech made it sound like she was having sex indiscriminately.
Well, even if Fluke was having sex indiscriminately, to Christians, that doesn't make her a slut, just a sinner.
I guess they either forgot the story of Jesus and the woman at the well or they feel that Limbaugh, with his four wives and Oxycontin problem is worthy of casting the first stone.
Alice Chapel,
Spring Branch
March 2012
Contributors: Stephen Baird Jason Chapel Jim Denton Cleo Dufresne JC Dufresne Melissa Dufresne Katherine Edmiston Dolores Guinn Candace Flenniken King Lynny Moore Sandi Root
What have liberals ever done that conservatives like Dale Wehrle find so offensive? Liberals passed the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. You do like clean water to drink don’t you? Clean air is really nice too. Liberals made sure that African Americans have the right to vote, passed the Civil Rights Act and ended segregation. Liberals passed the 19th
amendment insuring that today’s women have the right to vote. Liberals created Medicare and complain as you will it is far better than private insurance would be for those 65 and older because insurance companies would either reject seniors outright or charge unaffordable rates because they’re just in it for the profit. Conservatives voted against all those things.
ACLU stands for American Civil Liberties Union and it isn’t a liberal organization at least not in the way Wehrle seems to think; if it were they would never have supported neo-Nazis’ First Amendment right to demonstrate in Skokie, Ill. or Lt. Colonel Oliver North when his fifth amendment right not to incriminate himself was violated. The ACLU is “the” organization to turn to when your civil rights are violated.
You know, the first ten amendments also known as “The Bill of Rights.” If you’re offended by liberals and our accomplishments that’s your right under the Constitution, as for me I proudly wear the label “Liberal.” I’m also proud to have been a card carrying member of the ACLU.
JC Dufresne
State Democratic Executive Committeeman, SD25
The Seguin Gazette - 3-29-12
amendment insuring that today’s women have the right to vote. Liberals created Medicare and complain as you will it is far better than private insurance would be for those 65 and older because insurance companies would either reject seniors outright or charge unaffordable rates because they’re just in it for the profit. Conservatives voted against all those things.
ACLU stands for American Civil Liberties Union and it isn’t a liberal organization at least not in the way Wehrle seems to think; if it were they would never have supported neo-Nazis’ First Amendment right to demonstrate in Skokie, Ill. or Lt. Colonel Oliver North when his fifth amendment right not to incriminate himself was violated. The ACLU is “the” organization to turn to when your civil rights are violated.
You know, the first ten amendments also known as “The Bill of Rights.” If you’re offended by liberals and our accomplishments that’s your right under the Constitution, as for me I proudly wear the label “Liberal.” I’m also proud to have been a card carrying member of the ACLU.
JC Dufresne
State Democratic Executive Committeeman, SD25
The Seguin Gazette - 3-29-12
Texas' Governor Perry is suing the federal government because he and the Texas Legislature made a law that says because Planned Parenthood performs legal abortions and provides birth control to low wage women that Texas is going to withhold all Medicaid funds to PP. So, the government cut off all federal funds which was $9 for every $1 Texas funded. Abortions and birth control are legal in this country. Perry and the Legislature knew it was against federal law to withhold federal Medicaid money for religious beliefs. Our forefathers fought a revolution to stop that. Just because Perry and some of the legislators are religiously against birth control and abortions does not mean they can enforce their religious views on the rest of us. If that is their religion then they should not use birth control or have abortions but in this country we do not allow a religious organization to make our laws. If you start that the next thing will be that the Muslim churches will want to enforce Sharia Law on women. Some churches who do not believe in blood transfusions will want to make it illegal to have one. Other so called religions will want to allow the use of drugs in their services or forbid their congregations to pay taxes, etc. You may laugh but all of those things have already been tried in this country and we did not allow it. We are not going to let any religion force their religious views onto the rest of us. I don't know why these politicians do not want to be re-elected but they have guaranteed they will not be. Texas women will see to that.
Jim Denton - Gatesville, TX
Doug Ferguson, in his recent letter, concludes with this remark "You can only tax the so-called rich so much, then at some point in time you run out of their money to keep the scheme going". Ferguson focuses on tax brackets but ignores the true measure of taxation which is the effective tax rate that a person pays. The effective tax rate is the actual tax paid divided by income. Taking into account deductions and the fact that capital gains taxes and taxes on dividends are only 15%, the effective tax paid reveals a different story from the one that Ferguson is telling. According to the Tax Policy Center, average effective tax rates versus income brackets are:
0-$17,000: -6.0%; $17,000-$34,000: -3.7%; $34,000-$62,000: 3.4%; $62,000-$104,000: 7.8%;
$104,000-$169,000: 11.3%; $169,000-$215,000: 13.8%; $215,000-$568,000: 16.8%; $568,000-$2.5 million:
17.9%; More than $2.5 million: 18.1%
Source: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?
> DocID=3190
We do have a progressive tax system where the wealthy pay more but the effective rates are actually quite
reasonable. I personally would like to see income taxes replaced with a national sales tax. With such as system, to avoid unfairly penalizing those with low incomes, we would need to either: a) Exclude essential food and other living expenses from the sales tax or b) Give everyone a 'gift card' that excludes the tax until total expenditures exceed an established minimum income level.
Short of a national sales tax, we should return to the pre-Bush tax brackets by 2015, increasing tax revenues by $400 billion per year. This would not cause much pain for any of us.
Stephen Baird - New Braunfels
Herald Zeitung - 3/9/12
0-$17,000: -6.0%; $17,000-$34,000: -3.7%; $34,000-$62,000: 3.4%; $62,000-$104,000: 7.8%;
$104,000-$169,000: 11.3%; $169,000-$215,000: 13.8%; $215,000-$568,000: 16.8%; $568,000-$2.5 million:
17.9%; More than $2.5 million: 18.1%
Source: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?
> DocID=3190
We do have a progressive tax system where the wealthy pay more but the effective rates are actually quite
reasonable. I personally would like to see income taxes replaced with a national sales tax. With such as system, to avoid unfairly penalizing those with low incomes, we would need to either: a) Exclude essential food and other living expenses from the sales tax or b) Give everyone a 'gift card' that excludes the tax until total expenditures exceed an established minimum income level.
Short of a national sales tax, we should return to the pre-Bush tax brackets by 2015, increasing tax revenues by $400 billion per year. This would not cause much pain for any of us.
Stephen Baird - New Braunfels
Herald Zeitung - 3/9/12
Assault on women
What the real Saudi Arabia now has in common with the fictional one in the U.S. is both have relegated their female citizens behind the veil, out of sight and under the thumb of their male masters.
Soon women will lose their right to drive a car, vote or travel at will, among whatever else our good legislators can come up with next. (And shame on those female legislators who promote 13th century mores alongside the men).
What it says to me is that all of this hocus-pocus about “reproductive rights” and “abortion” is nothing but a smoke screen to hide behind because women are so much more sagacious than men, and that just won't do!
Sandi Root
San Antonio Express News - March 7, 2012
What the real Saudi Arabia now has in common with the fictional one in the U.S. is both have relegated their female citizens behind the veil, out of sight and under the thumb of their male masters.
Soon women will lose their right to drive a car, vote or travel at will, among whatever else our good legislators can come up with next. (And shame on those female legislators who promote 13th century mores alongside the men).
What it says to me is that all of this hocus-pocus about “reproductive rights” and “abortion” is nothing but a smoke screen to hide behind because women are so much more sagacious than men, and that just won't do!
Sandi Root
San Antonio Express News - March 7, 2012
Alternatives to Convoluted Health Insurance Mess
Bob Shearer’s letter, “President Obama has violated his oath of office,” claims — as others who oppose the president do — that businesses run by religious institutions shouldn’t have to abide by the same rules as everyone else.
Shearer seems to think health insurance provided by employers is some kind of gift, when in fact it is a part of the employee’s compensation package.
The reality is that it’s the employee’s work that’s being compensated, and the employer is simply a conduit for insurance premiums. The only reason we even have this convoluted system is that for-profit insurance companies offer lower rates to larger pools of customers, so it’s to the employee’s financial advantage to participate in the employer’s insurance program rather than buy individual coverage at a higher price.
There are two alternatives to this convoluted mess that would resolve Shearer’s concerns if he really wanted to “protect” employers from paying for medical care they found morally objectionable.
Option 1 is to do what many advanced countries around the world do and offer single-payer, government-sponsored program. Option 2 is simply to require for-profit companies to offer the same rates to everyone in a community so that they can’t cherry pick the healthiest people and leave the sickest with the highest bills.
Cleo Dufresne - Cibola
New Braunfels Herald Zeitung - March 7, 2012
Dirty GOP trick
Re: “Case for voter ID” (Letters, Feb. 26):
As usual, Republicans use inaccuracies to justify their solution in search of a problem: the need for voter IDs.
The real truth is that, since 2000, 400 million ballots have been cast in general elections and, of that, the Brennan Center for Justice has counted 11 or 12 possible attempts of polling place voter fraud. The only objective of requiring a voter ID is to suppress voting of minorities and senior citizens, who often vote Democratic.
These voters aren't dead, aren't frauds and aren't racist fear-mongers. I understand the GOP's desire to suppress votes considering their clown car still has four clowns inside. Many GOPers will need to show up in November to vote for the last clown standing.
Jason Chapel,
Spring Branch
No Standards for Lunches Brought From Home
Regarding the Feb. 22 letter, “Stand up for freedom; end government intervention,” Ms. Goodenough is most likely referring to H.R. 2112: Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012.
It was sponsored by Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., and voted into law by 165 Democrats and 133 Republicans after several concessions on potatoes and tomato sauce were reached on the rules (Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs) specific to school food programs.
All standards pertaining to H.R. 2112 and the school lunch and breakfast programs are directed at schools only. You have received incorrect information, as there are no directions in this act for individual students or their parents or guardians regarding lunch or breakfast brought from home.
Lynny Moore - San Marcos
Lunch Letter Should've Been on Comics Page
Your new satire writer Carolyn Goodenough must have come from The Onion. Her letter, “Stand up for freedom; end government intervention,” was hysterically funny.
I did find it odd that you’d place it in the Letters to the Editor, but I guess that was part of the joke. She really had me going, so I looked up the new healthy lunch program called “Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs” just to be sure she was kidding us.
Thanks for including her funny material, but perhaps you should place her next piece in a more appropriate location, like the Comics page.
Melissa Dufresne - Cibola
New Braunfels Herald Zeitung
Your new satire writer Carolyn Goodenough must have come from The Onion. Her letter, “Stand up for freedom; end government intervention,” was hysterically funny.
I did find it odd that you’d place it in the Letters to the Editor, but I guess that was part of the joke. She really had me going, so I looked up the new healthy lunch program called “Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs” just to be sure she was kidding us.
Thanks for including her funny material, but perhaps you should place her next piece in a more appropriate location, like the Comics page.
Melissa Dufresne - Cibola
New Braunfels Herald Zeitung
Perry playing politics with women's health
Gov. Rick Perry is throwing Texas women — our mothers, sisters, aunts, girlfriends — under the bus by cutting the Women’s Health Program.
When it ends in mid-March, about 130,000 low-income, uninsured women will be denied hypertension, diabetes, breast and cervical cancer screenings, STD testing, annual exams and birth control at the hands of the Texas legislative leadership.
The Women’s Health Program helps women plan their families, have healthy babies and saves Texas at least $20 million each year in services related to unintended pregnancies. Without WHP, abortions will likely increase.
Is this what you want, Gov. Perry? Playing politics with the lives and health of Texas women is totally unacceptable.
Candace Flenniken King
Heraold Zeitung - March 1, 2012
Gov. Rick Perry is throwing Texas women — our mothers, sisters, aunts, girlfriends — under the bus by cutting the Women’s Health Program.
When it ends in mid-March, about 130,000 low-income, uninsured women will be denied hypertension, diabetes, breast and cervical cancer screenings, STD testing, annual exams and birth control at the hands of the Texas legislative leadership.
The Women’s Health Program helps women plan their families, have healthy babies and saves Texas at least $20 million each year in services related to unintended pregnancies. Without WHP, abortions will likely increase.
Is this what you want, Gov. Perry? Playing politics with the lives and health of Texas women is totally unacceptable.
Candace Flenniken King
Heraold Zeitung - March 1, 2012
February, 2012
contributors: Stephen Baird JC Dufresne Adrian Guinn Dolores Guinn Michael Henry Jose Martinez Brenda Witt
In response to Carolyn Goodenough's statement on 2/22/12 that Michelle Obama's support for increased
nutritional value in government-subsided school-prepared lunches constitutes "government coming into our homes and telling us what to feed our children" is total misinformation. These changes make no comment at all about families' decisions about home-prepared lunches. It is ironic that Republicans rant about such issues as improved nutrition in school lunches but seem to have no problem with government interference when Republicans propose limits on women's rights to health care, including contraception! The House commitee's recent hearing on women's health care called 5 witnesses, all male, then refused Democrats' recommendation of a female witness. Later when they finally agreed to allow her to testify, they banned televised coverage of the testimony. What a double standard! I am much more concerned about government interference in the rights of women to make decisions abouth their own bodies and I believe most women will agree. And by the way, why are the Republican presidentail candidates spending all their time of such social issues instead of coming up with viable plans to improve the economy?
Brenda Witt - New Braunfels Herald Zeitung
nutritional value in government-subsided school-prepared lunches constitutes "government coming into our homes and telling us what to feed our children" is total misinformation. These changes make no comment at all about families' decisions about home-prepared lunches. It is ironic that Republicans rant about such issues as improved nutrition in school lunches but seem to have no problem with government interference when Republicans propose limits on women's rights to health care, including contraception! The House commitee's recent hearing on women's health care called 5 witnesses, all male, then refused Democrats' recommendation of a female witness. Later when they finally agreed to allow her to testify, they banned televised coverage of the testimony. What a double standard! I am much more concerned about government interference in the rights of women to make decisions abouth their own bodies and I believe most women will agree. And by the way, why are the Republican presidentail candidates spending all their time of such social issues instead of coming up with viable plans to improve the economy?
Brenda Witt - New Braunfels Herald Zeitung
In his letter “Obama wants to run up another $1T deficit” John Landry uses the term “Obama’s ruinous spending”. This is a classic example of misrepresentation of information. When Obama took office in 2009, the budget had already been established and the Congressional Budget Office projected a deficit of $1.2 trillion. Obama’s stimulus package wasn’t perfect but 2/3 of it consisted of tax cuts, benefits to the unemployed and
money to the states to enable them to avoid large layoffs of their employees. The state of Texas received and spent a total of $22.5 billion of stimulus money while Governor Rick Perry was trashing the program’s merits. The deficit in 2008, the year before Obama became President was $459 billion. The effects of the Great Recession, yearly tax revenues decreased by $350 billion and increased expenditures for the unemployed of $200 billion per year, have added $550 billion to our deficit for each of the years 2009, 2010 and 2011. That, when combined with the deficit level of Bush's last year as President, accounts for over $1 trillion of the deficit. Can we call this exorbitant spending by Obama? No. During recessions, deficits always increase. What we need is a better, long-term, balanced plan for deficit reduction with gradual spending cuts and eventual elimination of all of the Bush-era tax cuts.
> Sources for revenue and budget information:
> www.usgovernmentspending.com,
> www.usgovernmentrevenue.com
Stephen Baird - New Braunfels - 2/22/12
money to the states to enable them to avoid large layoffs of their employees. The state of Texas received and spent a total of $22.5 billion of stimulus money while Governor Rick Perry was trashing the program’s merits. The deficit in 2008, the year before Obama became President was $459 billion. The effects of the Great Recession, yearly tax revenues decreased by $350 billion and increased expenditures for the unemployed of $200 billion per year, have added $550 billion to our deficit for each of the years 2009, 2010 and 2011. That, when combined with the deficit level of Bush's last year as President, accounts for over $1 trillion of the deficit. Can we call this exorbitant spending by Obama? No. During recessions, deficits always increase. What we need is a better, long-term, balanced plan for deficit reduction with gradual spending cuts and eventual elimination of all of the Bush-era tax cuts.
> Sources for revenue and budget information:
> www.usgovernmentspending.com,
> www.usgovernmentrevenue.com
Stephen Baird - New Braunfels - 2/22/12
At my next annual review with my boss I’m going to use the Pentagon’s budget tactics. While my co-workers are taking pay cuts or getting pink slips I’ll make outrageous demands for 5% increases every year for the next decade then I’ll back down to a 1% cut this year while retaining my inflation adjusted salary from that point on.
That’s what the reported $500 billion budget cut Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is crowing about really is. He’s not talking about significant cuts to current spending he’s simply saying that we won’t increase spending as much as previously planned.
The real question is; if we’ve just ended the occupation of Iraq and we’ll be out of Afghanistan by 2014 why would we need to maintain high levels of defense spending let alone continue to increase it? We already spend more on defense than the next 13 nations combined. Why aren’t we returning to pre-war spending levels?
President Eisenhower, no military slouch once said “Every gun that is fired, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.”
JC Dufresne
New Braunfels Herald Zeitung
That’s what the reported $500 billion budget cut Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is crowing about really is. He’s not talking about significant cuts to current spending he’s simply saying that we won’t increase spending as much as previously planned.
The real question is; if we’ve just ended the occupation of Iraq and we’ll be out of Afghanistan by 2014 why would we need to maintain high levels of defense spending let alone continue to increase it? We already spend more on defense than the next 13 nations combined. Why aren’t we returning to pre-war spending levels?
President Eisenhower, no military slouch once said “Every gun that is fired, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.”
JC Dufresne
New Braunfels Herald Zeitung
Food stamp facts
During Jan. 16's Republican party presidential debate, Newt Gingrich remarked, "The fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history. Now, I know among the politically correct you're not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable."
The real problem is that among Republicans the use of "facts" doesn't mean speaking the truth. There are more people on food stamps than at any time since the program began, but the economy is in worse shape and has been for a longer period of time than at any time since the food stamp program began.
Who's responsible for that? Republicans and a few Democrats who are essentially owned by the banks and worked hard to remove all the regulations that protected this country from banking failures that could collapse our economy.
JC Dufresne
Austin statesman - Feb.6, 2012
During Jan. 16's Republican party presidential debate, Newt Gingrich remarked, "The fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history. Now, I know among the politically correct you're not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable."
The real problem is that among Republicans the use of "facts" doesn't mean speaking the truth. There are more people on food stamps than at any time since the program began, but the economy is in worse shape and has been for a longer period of time than at any time since the food stamp program began.
Who's responsible for that? Republicans and a few Democrats who are essentially owned by the banks and worked hard to remove all the regulations that protected this country from banking failures that could collapse our economy.
JC Dufresne
Austin statesman - Feb.6, 2012
January, 2012
Contributors: Stephen Baird Dian Bowers Jim Denton Kat Edmiston Dee Guinn Mike Henry Steve Love Billie Veach
ON PRIVATE EQUITY FUNDS
In the NYTimes op-ed section on January 20, Nicholas Kristof addresses a question asked by a student at Swarthmore College; "Is it unethical to make millions in private equity?" His answer is "No" but for the strangest reasons. He goes on to explain, “I’ve been sympathetic to the Occupy Wall Street movement, but, look, finance is not evil. Banking has contributed immensely to modern civilization. By allocating capital to more efficient uses, banking laid the groundwork for the industrial …and information revolution.”
The last part of this is true but the banking Kristof has in mind is a subconscious memory of banking when it was the “boring industry”…when it was a depository institution taking deposits, paying interest to depositors and making loans to mom and pop stores and returning G.I.s in the post WWII era… and only semantically related to the Glass-Steagall-free banks of today creating and gambling on mortgage-based securities with depositor’s money.
But even if we acknowledge the latter as “banking,” those institutions are still miles apart from the private equity funds that are predators, seeking out those corporations with some vulnerability: underfunding, a union, underused assets, low profitability, etc., to take over and extract what value is there. Banking - even the gambling kind - is not a predator institution. We have to initiate the contact. Private equity funds stalk and seek out their prey!
The motivating force of the private equity fund is the ruthless imposition of efficiency: the expenditure of the least resources for the most return benefiting the fewest. It is capital-focused, meaning that the human costs: lost jobs, reduced wages, disappeared pensions, lost job security and health care, etc. are all acceptable prices society must pay to achieve the holy grail of efficiency. They are a return to the predatory capitalism of the Robber Baron era and – to answer the student’s question – as ethical as the capitalism of that day is adjudged today…reminding us once again that what is legal is not necessarily ethical.
Steve Love
1/28/2012
In the NYTimes op-ed section on January 20, Nicholas Kristof addresses a question asked by a student at Swarthmore College; "Is it unethical to make millions in private equity?" His answer is "No" but for the strangest reasons. He goes on to explain, “I’ve been sympathetic to the Occupy Wall Street movement, but, look, finance is not evil. Banking has contributed immensely to modern civilization. By allocating capital to more efficient uses, banking laid the groundwork for the industrial …and information revolution.”
The last part of this is true but the banking Kristof has in mind is a subconscious memory of banking when it was the “boring industry”…when it was a depository institution taking deposits, paying interest to depositors and making loans to mom and pop stores and returning G.I.s in the post WWII era… and only semantically related to the Glass-Steagall-free banks of today creating and gambling on mortgage-based securities with depositor’s money.
But even if we acknowledge the latter as “banking,” those institutions are still miles apart from the private equity funds that are predators, seeking out those corporations with some vulnerability: underfunding, a union, underused assets, low profitability, etc., to take over and extract what value is there. Banking - even the gambling kind - is not a predator institution. We have to initiate the contact. Private equity funds stalk and seek out their prey!
The motivating force of the private equity fund is the ruthless imposition of efficiency: the expenditure of the least resources for the most return benefiting the fewest. It is capital-focused, meaning that the human costs: lost jobs, reduced wages, disappeared pensions, lost job security and health care, etc. are all acceptable prices society must pay to achieve the holy grail of efficiency. They are a return to the predatory capitalism of the Robber Baron era and – to answer the student’s question – as ethical as the capitalism of that day is adjudged today…reminding us once again that what is legal is not necessarily ethical.
Steve Love
1/28/2012
Business is for profit-----Government is for the people. WE have a President who understands these concepts and thank goodness. What I have seen in the GOP debates are people with the skill set for "Business is for profit". That is a fine concept and the GOP candidates are all multi-millionaires and I envy their abilities to make money. But that has little to do with the skill set to run government because "Government is for the people". All I heard from the GOP candidates was how they were going to cut Medicare, Social Security, food stamps, health care, etc. They just do not have the skill set we the people need
Jim Denton
What About Rural Teachers?
I would like to respond to Richard Whittaker's article about the 10 mistakes of Perry ["Top 10 Rick Perry Campaign Misfires," News, Jan. 6]. With all due respect when mentioning education, teachers, etc., no one mentions the elderly retired rural teachers. Why? All teachers will be retired one day, and this is an issue that should be addressed.
An 80-year-old retired rural teacher has received a paycheck for less than $1,500 a month since 1999, when George Bush was governor. Rick Perry has never given retired teachers a raise. After 30 years in the school system and mandatory Teacher Retirement System of Texas payments taken out of his check, the teacher now has multiple illnesses and is trying to pay increased doctor deductibles for Medicare and TRS. The 16th largest pension plan in the world is the TRS with $113 billion in the pension fund that belongs to the members, not to Perry so he can invest in the stock of his high-dollar donors' companies. He is doing similar things to the pensions of retired state employees, police officers, and firefighters. A newly retired teacher today with the same years of service receives $36,000 a year. It seems the powers that be should raise those retirees that are 70 or 75 years old and older to a livable monthly pension. How can people forget Grandma and Grandpa's welfare status? Instead they raise the deductibles and co-pays for doctor visits and prescription deductibles. Thanks so much … there's not enough money now to afford those things, no raise, and they only take more money from us. You cannot double dip from mandatory Social Security paid in for 20 years in the private sector. Six years ago, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison said she was going to fix that. Well it is not fixed, with the exception that Rick Perry fixed it for him. Why doesn't the Justice Department, FBI, IRS, or another honest outside auditor find out what is happening to our money? And Medicare is not an entitlement. We have paid since 1964 and continue to pay $200 a month for insurance and $300 a month in premiums for TRS health coverage. Please remind people Medicare is not an entitlement, but Medicaid is. I don't know what Rick Perry would do to Social Security and Medicare.
Do they all want the elderly dead?
Billie Veach - Burnet, Texas
Austin Chronicle - 1/9/12
Re: John Neely’s letter “Obamacare Affects the Quality of Health Care.”
Mr. Neely in his Jan. 4 letter (“Obamacare affects quality of medical care) has made some assertions and drawn some conclusions that are incorrect.
This content is available to Herald-Zeitung subscribers
Congress is required to use the same Health Insurance Exchange that individuals and small businesses are allowed to use beginning in 2014. They are not, as Mr. Neely claimed, exempt from“Obamacare.”
Mr. Neely didn’t clarify if he was using Medicare or private insurance. If Medicare, be aware that Medicare rules have nothing to do with “Obamacare.” If private insurance: The “bureaucrat” to whom Mr. Neely refers is someone in the offices of a private insurer who has nothing to do with “Obamacare” today.
Private insurers have, for as long as I can remember, dictated to doctors what they will or will not insure, causing frequent frustration to both the doctors and their patients. The Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”) actually offers
Mr. Neely has some recourse in this situation that he didn’t previously have. If he has a new private health insurance plan (one bought after the Affordable Care Act took effect on March 23, 2010), he’ll have access to an improved process for appealing denials of benefits from a health insurer. See:http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/external_appeals.html).
Also, he can turn to the ACA-funded Consumer Health Assistance Program at the Texas Department of Insurance, if he needs any help filing or following up on an appeal. See: www.chap.texas.gov/resources/canchaphelpme.html.
Stephen Baird
New Braunfels - Jan. 8, 2012
Mr. Neely in his Jan. 4 letter (“Obamacare affects quality of medical care) has made some assertions and drawn some conclusions that are incorrect.
This content is available to Herald-Zeitung subscribers
Congress is required to use the same Health Insurance Exchange that individuals and small businesses are allowed to use beginning in 2014. They are not, as Mr. Neely claimed, exempt from“Obamacare.”
Mr. Neely didn’t clarify if he was using Medicare or private insurance. If Medicare, be aware that Medicare rules have nothing to do with “Obamacare.” If private insurance: The “bureaucrat” to whom Mr. Neely refers is someone in the offices of a private insurer who has nothing to do with “Obamacare” today.
Private insurers have, for as long as I can remember, dictated to doctors what they will or will not insure, causing frequent frustration to both the doctors and their patients. The Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”) actually offers
Mr. Neely has some recourse in this situation that he didn’t previously have. If he has a new private health insurance plan (one bought after the Affordable Care Act took effect on March 23, 2010), he’ll have access to an improved process for appealing denials of benefits from a health insurer. See:http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/external_appeals.html).
Also, he can turn to the ACA-funded Consumer Health Assistance Program at the Texas Department of Insurance, if he needs any help filing or following up on an appeal. See: www.chap.texas.gov/resources/canchaphelpme.html.
Stephen Baird
New Braunfels - Jan. 8, 2012
Hardly a day goes by but there is someone charging that Obama wants to "redistribute" the nation's wealth. Before Obama’s “wealth redistribution” can be understood as a problem, we must first understand how wealth has been distributed by previous Presidents. We need to know that every President from FDR to Carter has advocated a “wealth distribution formula” which insured that as the nation’s wealth grew, everyone got richer! Everyone had a slice of the American pie and, with a larger pie came larger pieces! This was the Golden Goose that laid the middle class.
Voices, dissatisfied with that formula, came to the White House in 1980. These people wanted, not a larger pie for the whole nation, they wanted a bigger slice of the pie for themselves. The population with the next-most money was the middle class, so they were targeted. The tax cuts of the last 30 years are about the already rich taking a larger share of the pie and the middle class a smaller one. If you see yourself as middle class and wonder why you struggle harder than your parents to make ends meet, now you know why and who is responsible.
Steve Love - Dallas
Voices, dissatisfied with that formula, came to the White House in 1980. These people wanted, not a larger pie for the whole nation, they wanted a bigger slice of the pie for themselves. The population with the next-most money was the middle class, so they were targeted. The tax cuts of the last 30 years are about the already rich taking a larger share of the pie and the middle class a smaller one. If you see yourself as middle class and wonder why you struggle harder than your parents to make ends meet, now you know why and who is responsible.
Steve Love - Dallas
December, 2011
Contributors: Stephen Baird Jim Denton JC Dufresne Mike Henry Mary Patrick
Why do Texans put up with politicians like Rick Perry who start collecting state retirement pay before they quit working and even then do not work at the job they have now? Rick Perry collects almost $8000 month from Texas residents in retirement, then collects pay for being governor and isn't even in the state because he is out campaigning for another job. He could not qualify in Virginia to even get on the ballot to run for President. Time to wise up Texas.
Jim Denton - Gatesville
Congressmen Quico Canseco and Lamar Smith conspired with the rest of the House Republicans to give their constituents and 160 million Americans a lump of coal this Christmas by choosing not to pass the payroll tax cut extension and unemployment insurance benefits extension. What may be even worse though is they also chose not to pass the bill that would have prevented Medicare from cutting doctors’ reimbursements by a whopping 27% starting January 1. Remember this is a bill that passed the Senate 89-10 with support from both Sen. Cornyn and Sen. Hutchison.
What will our seniors like me do when in need of medical care while House Republicans hold us hostage for political gain? Like any other hostage taker Canseco and Smith don’t care.
JC Dufresne
New Braunfels Herald-Zeitung - Dec. 24, 2011
Sundays editorial by Jonathan Gurwitz shows he hasn’t gotten the memo that the Koch Brothers paid for a two year study by prominent physicist and global warming skeptic Richard Muller and he found, much to his surprise, that the 97% of climate scientists who’ve been warning us about it are correct, the earth is warming.
Muller went back to data recorded by Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson and reviewed several other data sets as well as correcting for the heat island effects due to the growth of modern cities and still found that the planet is warming just like James E. Hansen of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration has been telling us for over a decade. Muller’s conclusion is “now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias.”
Muller says he was spurred to action by the very “Climategate” emails Gurwitz mentions in the editorial as evidence that the big bad scientists are misleading us. Sadly Mr. Gurwitz fails to note that while those emails show that scientists can also be petty and vainglorious just like everyone else they do not reveal any evidence that the conclusions of those scientists are wrong.
The Associated Press also reports that Georgia Tech climate scientist Judith Curry worked with Muller on the project and she is quoted as saying of the study “results unambiguously show an increase in surface temperature since 1960.”
I suggest Mr. Gurwitz catch up on his reading.
JC Dufresne - Dec. 5, 2011
Muller went back to data recorded by Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson and reviewed several other data sets as well as correcting for the heat island effects due to the growth of modern cities and still found that the planet is warming just like James E. Hansen of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration has been telling us for over a decade. Muller’s conclusion is “now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias.”
Muller says he was spurred to action by the very “Climategate” emails Gurwitz mentions in the editorial as evidence that the big bad scientists are misleading us. Sadly Mr. Gurwitz fails to note that while those emails show that scientists can also be petty and vainglorious just like everyone else they do not reveal any evidence that the conclusions of those scientists are wrong.
The Associated Press also reports that Georgia Tech climate scientist Judith Curry worked with Muller on the project and she is quoted as saying of the study “results unambiguously show an increase in surface temperature since 1960.”
I suggest Mr. Gurwitz catch up on his reading.
JC Dufresne - Dec. 5, 2011
Affordable Care Act Helps Seniors and Children
Recent data illustrate the benefits of the often maligned Affordable Care Act, referred to by many as “Obamacare”.
According to Medicare’s Office of the Actuary, which handles economic estimates, the average senior who falls into the Medicare Part D “doughnut hole” pays only $901 in 2011. Without “Obamacare” the average out-of-pocket expense would have been $1504.
A provision of the Part D prescription drug law requires those unlucky seniors whose total drug costs exceed $2930 during a calendar year to pay for 100% of their remaining costs for that year until their total out-of-pocket expense reaches $4700. For the initial $2930, the majority of the cost is paid by the health insurer. The gap where a senior pays 100% of the cost is referred to as the “doughnut hole”.
The Affordable Care Act requires that the pharmaceutical companies offer a 50% discount on brand-name drugs to seniors who enter the “doughnut hole”. This is the reason that out-of-pocket expenses are so much lower this year for those who have a Medicare Part D policy.
A report from a study done at Georgetown University concludes that the number of children without health care has dropped by 1 million, a 15% decrease since 2008. Experts say that the Affordable Care Act, which requires states to maintain income eligibility levels and discourages other barriers to improvement, has been responsible for this result.
Voters in 2012 should not forget that every Republican candidate for President has vowed to repeal “Obamacare”.
Stephen Baird - New Braunfels Herald Zeitung
Recent data illustrate the benefits of the often maligned Affordable Care Act, referred to by many as “Obamacare”.
According to Medicare’s Office of the Actuary, which handles economic estimates, the average senior who falls into the Medicare Part D “doughnut hole” pays only $901 in 2011. Without “Obamacare” the average out-of-pocket expense would have been $1504.
A provision of the Part D prescription drug law requires those unlucky seniors whose total drug costs exceed $2930 during a calendar year to pay for 100% of their remaining costs for that year until their total out-of-pocket expense reaches $4700. For the initial $2930, the majority of the cost is paid by the health insurer. The gap where a senior pays 100% of the cost is referred to as the “doughnut hole”.
The Affordable Care Act requires that the pharmaceutical companies offer a 50% discount on brand-name drugs to seniors who enter the “doughnut hole”. This is the reason that out-of-pocket expenses are so much lower this year for those who have a Medicare Part D policy.
A report from a study done at Georgetown University concludes that the number of children without health care has dropped by 1 million, a 15% decrease since 2008. Experts say that the Affordable Care Act, which requires states to maintain income eligibility levels and discourages other barriers to improvement, has been responsible for this result.
Voters in 2012 should not forget that every Republican candidate for President has vowed to repeal “Obamacare”.
Stephen Baird - New Braunfels Herald Zeitung
Sorry, America
For years we have done our best to keep our shame a secret. For years we have worked hard to keep the source of our secret and shame quietly controlled here at home.
Regretfully, someone took their eyes off the ball and the source somehow decided to spread outside the border of this state. Our secret is out and our shame exposed for all to see.
Beware, America! Please save yourselves from carrying the burden of this secret and the embarrassment of the shame. We apologize for letting it get out. Go ahead and send Rick Perry back home soon. We will do our best to contain him here.
Mary Patrick -Austin Statesman
November, 2011
contributors: Donald Ament Alice C. Chapel JC Dufresne Melissa Dufresne Katherine Edmiston Nancy Glasscock Dolores Guinn
It yields no results
In response to Lamar Carnes' letter (“It isn't torture,” Nov. 16), first, I want to advise him that shooting someone to
death is not classified as torture. Interrogation officials say waterboarding is torture and does not yield important information they are able to garner with regular interrogation techniques.
The president and U.S. military special forces were able to get Osama bin Laden and help get Moammar Gadhafi, something the “warriors” were unable to do. All they were able to do was manage to get 4,000-plus American soldiers killed and many more injured as they went after the wrong country.
I recommend that Carnes and the presidential hopefuls on the right, who claim waterboarding is not torture, volunteer to have it done to them on TV so we can all watch as they give us their own account that it is not torture.
— Alice C. Chapel, Spring Branch
San Antonio Express News - Nov. 29, 2011
Smith's On-Line Piracy Act Goes Way Too Far
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) recently introduced the Stop Online Piracy Act in the U.S. House of Representatives. It sounds great — at least until you actually read some of the provisions in it.
Without ever appearing before a judge or setting foot in a courtroom the owner of copyrighted material could shut down any website’s online advertising programs and block access to credit card payments. The police can’t search your house without a warrant from a judge, but a company can stop you from earning a living just by filing a document with the Clerk of Court.
Under this ridiculously broad bill, you can be found in violation if the core functionality of your site “enables or facilitates” infringement. Bye-bye YouTube, so long Flickr and Shutterfly or any website that allows users to post text, photos or video. That means this newspaper’s website too, my friends. Heck, the entire Internet enables or facilitates infringement.
Is this really the road we want to be on, do we really want just anyone to be able to shutdown nearly any website on a whim?
Cleo Dufresne
New Braunfels Herald-Zeitung - Nov.26, 2011
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) recently introduced the Stop Online Piracy Act in the U.S. House of Representatives. It sounds great — at least until you actually read some of the provisions in it.
Without ever appearing before a judge or setting foot in a courtroom the owner of copyrighted material could shut down any website’s online advertising programs and block access to credit card payments. The police can’t search your house without a warrant from a judge, but a company can stop you from earning a living just by filing a document with the Clerk of Court.
Under this ridiculously broad bill, you can be found in violation if the core functionality of your site “enables or facilitates” infringement. Bye-bye YouTube, so long Flickr and Shutterfly or any website that allows users to post text, photos or video. That means this newspaper’s website too, my friends. Heck, the entire Internet enables or facilitates infringement.
Is this really the road we want to be on, do we really want just anyone to be able to shutdown nearly any website on a whim?
Cleo Dufresne
New Braunfels Herald-Zeitung - Nov.26, 2011
In one of the most disgusting displays of bi-partisanship I’ve ever seen both Congressman Henry Cuellar and Senator John Cornyn are advocating for a balanced budget amendment. Both these highly educated gentlemen are lawyers and experienced legislators but obviously not economists.
Enshrining a balanced budget in our constitution would shackle our nation in times of disaster or war by preventing the federal government from spending on emergency needs without either immediately cutting spending elsewhere by the same amount thus cutting government services and putting government employees out of work or raising taxes precipitously to immediately offset that spending rather then spreading the payments out over time.
According to a blistering analysis of a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) by Macroeconomic Advisers, one of the nation’s preeminent private and non-partisan economic forecasting firms, if a constitutional balanced budget amendment had already been ratified and were now being enforced for fiscal year 2012, “the effect on the economy would be catastrophic,” Macroeconomic Advisers also concludes that under a balanced budget amendment, “recessions would be deeper and longer,” and uncertainty would be cast over the economy that could slow economic growth even in normal economic times.
In short Congressman Cuellar and Senator Cornyn should bone up on their economics before bring up this silly amendment ever again.
J C Dufresne - Cibolo, TX
Dear Editor,
Your assertion that 26 states attorney’s general joined in challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act because they consider it an intrusion of federal authority is laughable. All one has to do is look at the 26 Teapublican states to understand that this is a political shell game by the the party of no leaders, no ideas and no morals. As an alternate strategy, Teapublicans want to withhold funding for implementing parts of the PPACA, and then hope that the party gains control of the Senate and White House in the 2012 election to push through the repeal before its major provisions take effect in 2014.
The GOP had total control of Congress from 2002 to 2006 and not once during that period did they seriously attempt to reform the healthcare cost structure. However, in 2003 they created a prescription drug entitlement program that helped speed up the collapse of Medicare. Teapublicans insist on Band-Aid solutions like reimbursing corporations for the drug benefits they were already providing to their retirees. Now the federal government is forced to send huge checks to some of the largest corporations in the U.S. for the costs that they were already contractually obligated to pay.
Teapublicans don’t want thoughtful discussion about substantive policy differences. Their goal is to bring harm upon our nation by defeating our president at any cost! It’s a form of homegrown terrorism. In their own words, "defeat him, stop him, bring him down".
Speaking of bankruptcy... two unfunded wars ($3 trillion), an unfunded prescription drug program ($557 billion), ten years of tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires ($1.5 trillion), and record spending increases ($4.3 trillion) clearly proves that Republicans had already put us on the path of financial peril well before Obama took office.
Nancy Glasscock
Waco Tribune - Nov. 15, 2011
Fertilized Human Egg Not Same As A Legal Person
When asked by Fox News whether he would have supported a "personhood" constitutional amendment, Mitt Romney replied, "Absolutely."
Now I realize that many readers are pro-life but this is by far the most radical stand of any of the Republican contenders. "Personhood" amendments are now being considered in states like Mississippi, Florida, and Ohio, and if passed would elevate a fertilized human egg to the status of a legal person. That means no more IUDs or the morning-after pill and if a woman used them she could be charged with murder. In-vitro fertilization would be illegal because is creates fertilized eggs that would have to be disposed of at some point. Abortions would be considered murder and there would be no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest and if a woman’s pregnancy endangers a her life doctors would have to just let her die.
Would a class action suit be filed on behalf of all those eggs in refrigeration at fertility clinics around the country to force their mothers to carry them to term? Would anyone disposing of those fertilized eggs be prosecuted for murder?
So we now have a leading contender for the Republican party’s presidential nomination on the record in favor of radically changing that status quo regarding fertility clinics and classifying some forms of birth control as murder. Is Mitt Romney really the man you want to be next President of the United States?
Herald-Zeitung - November 8, 2011
Now I realize that many readers are pro-life but this is by far the most radical stand of any of the Republican contenders. "Personhood" amendments are now being considered in states like Mississippi, Florida, and Ohio, and if passed would elevate a fertilized human egg to the status of a legal person. That means no more IUDs or the morning-after pill and if a woman used them she could be charged with murder. In-vitro fertilization would be illegal because is creates fertilized eggs that would have to be disposed of at some point. Abortions would be considered murder and there would be no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest and if a woman’s pregnancy endangers a her life doctors would have to just let her die.
Would a class action suit be filed on behalf of all those eggs in refrigeration at fertility clinics around the country to force their mothers to carry them to term? Would anyone disposing of those fertilized eggs be prosecuted for murder?
So we now have a leading contender for the Republican party’s presidential nomination on the record in favor of radically changing that status quo regarding fertility clinics and classifying some forms of birth control as murder. Is Mitt Romney really the man you want to be next President of the United States?
Herald-Zeitung - November 8, 2011
October, 2011
contributors: Stephen Baird JC Dufresne Adrian Guinn Dolores Guinn Mike Henry Danny Root
Someone recently said to me“.President Obama has presided over an unprecedented expansion of government spending and government debt.” These remarks are typical of the sort of misinformation from those who are on a mission to discredit our President. Compare the three years under Obama (including 2011 projections) to the previous 3 year period (2006-2008): See www.usgovernmentspending.com and www.usgovernmentrevenue.com.
1) Due to the effect of the Great Recession that Obama inherited, tax revenues were lower by $1.06 trillion.
2) Welfare was higher by $0.57 trillion due to the substantial increase in unemployment benefits and payment of insurance premiums for the jobless.
3) Defense spending was higher by $0.6 trillion; Obama made no changes except to authorize the surge in Afghanistan recommended by continuing Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates.
4) Pension benefits were higher by $0.32 trillion – Obama made no changes to Social Security. Baby boomers are retiring as we all knew they would.
5) Health care benefits were higher by $0.61 trillion – Caused by baby boomers becoming Medicare-eligible plus health care costs that are increasing nearly twice as much as the rate of inflation. Adding the lost revenue to the expenditures explained above, one arrives at a number of $3.16 trillion of deficits.
President Obama was tossed a ‘losing hand’ when he took office. Drastic spending cuts in the near term will surely take us into another recession. We need a long-term plan that gradually phases in a combination of tax increases and spending cuts.
Stephen Baird
Heraold Zeitung - Oct.
1) Due to the effect of the Great Recession that Obama inherited, tax revenues were lower by $1.06 trillion.
2) Welfare was higher by $0.57 trillion due to the substantial increase in unemployment benefits and payment of insurance premiums for the jobless.
3) Defense spending was higher by $0.6 trillion; Obama made no changes except to authorize the surge in Afghanistan recommended by continuing Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates.
4) Pension benefits were higher by $0.32 trillion – Obama made no changes to Social Security. Baby boomers are retiring as we all knew they would.
5) Health care benefits were higher by $0.61 trillion – Caused by baby boomers becoming Medicare-eligible plus health care costs that are increasing nearly twice as much as the rate of inflation. Adding the lost revenue to the expenditures explained above, one arrives at a number of $3.16 trillion of deficits.
President Obama was tossed a ‘losing hand’ when he took office. Drastic spending cuts in the near term will surely take us into another recession. We need a long-term plan that gradually phases in a combination of tax increases and spending cuts.
Stephen Baird
Heraold Zeitung - Oct.
Alternative to Separation of Church and State is Unthinkable
Mr. Arevalo’s letter (“Attempts to discredit God, Bible in Texas schools”) in your Oct. 13 edition uses some provocative, if uninformed, generalizations about separation of church and state.
It might interest your readers to know that the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, is himself an ordained minister in the Church of Christ.
Many more of AU’s members and supporters all over America also are ministers or practicing Christians. Society (or, at least, American society) wants church and state to be separate because the alternative — a theocracy — is unthinkable.
That is just what many of the early European colonists came to North America in the 17th and 18th centuries to escape.
Danny Root-Bulverde
New Braunfels Herald Zeitung - Oct. 15
It might interest your readers to know that the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, is himself an ordained minister in the Church of Christ.
Many more of AU’s members and supporters all over America also are ministers or practicing Christians. Society (or, at least, American society) wants church and state to be separate because the alternative — a theocracy — is unthinkable.
That is just what many of the early European colonists came to North America in the 17th and 18th centuries to escape.
Danny Root-Bulverde
New Braunfels Herald Zeitung - Oct. 15
Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn signed a letter to Dept. of Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius this week complaining about the department’s implementation of the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) recommendation to include birth control as a required part of health insurance.
The Senators say they are concerned "with the lack of due consideration given by [Sebelius] and your Department to the adverse impact that IOM's recommendations would have on our core constitutional value of religious liberty." The Senators stated that "[t]hough the IFRs' 'religious exemption' purports to protect religious organizations, health care professionals, and health care plans, it is clear that this protection falls well short of securing this constitutional right."
In other words because some fundamentalists feel there is a biblical prohibition on birth control in any form health insurance companies shouldn’t be required to cover it. Shouldn’t the logical extension of their argument be that if God wanted a man to procreate the man wouldn’t need Viagra therefore insurance shouldn’t cover it? Why haven’t we heard a tremendous uproar about prohibiting insurance from covering Viagra I wonder?
JC Dufresne
The Senators say they are concerned "with the lack of due consideration given by [Sebelius] and your Department to the adverse impact that IOM's recommendations would have on our core constitutional value of religious liberty." The Senators stated that "[t]hough the IFRs' 'religious exemption' purports to protect religious organizations, health care professionals, and health care plans, it is clear that this protection falls well short of securing this constitutional right."
In other words because some fundamentalists feel there is a biblical prohibition on birth control in any form health insurance companies shouldn’t be required to cover it. Shouldn’t the logical extension of their argument be that if God wanted a man to procreate the man wouldn’t need Viagra therefore insurance shouldn’t cover it? Why haven’t we heard a tremendous uproar about prohibiting insurance from covering Viagra I wonder?
JC Dufresne
September, 2011
contributors: Sheila Angerer JC Dufresne Mellisa Dufresne Katherine Edmiston Adrian Guinn Dolores Guinn Mike Henry Ed Mampel Bob Nortington Danny Root Kathleen To Brenda Witt
Smith, Canseko Like Those Millionaire Tax Breaks
President Obama has proposed to extend the payroll tax cut for low-income Americans. Since the TEA Party acronym stands for “taxed enough already,” you’d think TEA Party Republicans would jump on that and agree with the president for a change.
You’d think wrong.
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) told the AP, “It’s always a net positive to let taxpayers keep more of what they earn, but not all tax relief is created equal for the purposes of helping to get the economy moving again.”
Rep. David Camp (R-Mich.), chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said he also opposed the 12-month tax cut because it would cost the government about $120 billion next year if it were renewed.
According to the Washington Post, the Bush tax cuts amount to about $130 billion per year so I guess that means Republicans will now be against renewing those too. Why aren’t we hearing Lamar Smith and Quico Canseco coming out in favor of either continuing the payroll tax cuts or not renewing the Bush tax cuts?
Is expecting logical consistency too much to ask? It looks like Smith, Canseco and Hensarling never saw a millionaire tax break they didn’t like.
Melissa Dufresne - New Braunfels Herald Zeitung - Sept. 22, 2011
You’d think wrong.
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) told the AP, “It’s always a net positive to let taxpayers keep more of what they earn, but not all tax relief is created equal for the purposes of helping to get the economy moving again.”
Rep. David Camp (R-Mich.), chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said he also opposed the 12-month tax cut because it would cost the government about $120 billion next year if it were renewed.
According to the Washington Post, the Bush tax cuts amount to about $130 billion per year so I guess that means Republicans will now be against renewing those too. Why aren’t we hearing Lamar Smith and Quico Canseco coming out in favor of either continuing the payroll tax cuts or not renewing the Bush tax cuts?
Is expecting logical consistency too much to ask? It looks like Smith, Canseco and Hensarling never saw a millionaire tax break they didn’t like.
Melissa Dufresne - New Braunfels Herald Zeitung - Sept. 22, 2011
The Truth About Voter I D
Jeff Franklin claimed there have been “too many improper votes cast in past elections.”
I’ve worked as an elections clerk during a number of primary and general elections since 2003, and most of the “improprieties” I saw were due to voters who had moved from one precinct to another or simply had gone to the wrong, maybe most convenient, polling station — neither of which would have been changed by presentation of a photo ID. And, as Franklin pointed out, those issues can always be resolved by the submission of a provisional ballot.
The voter ID law isn’t going to improve noticeably the propriety of votes cast in Texas. However, it will intimidate and lessen the turnout of voters, especially those in certain political and ethnic groups.
But isn’t that the voter ID law’s purpose anyway?
Danny Root - Bulverde
San Antonio Express News - Sept. 23, 2011
I’ve worked as an elections clerk during a number of primary and general elections since 2003, and most of the “improprieties” I saw were due to voters who had moved from one precinct to another or simply had gone to the wrong, maybe most convenient, polling station — neither of which would have been changed by presentation of a photo ID. And, as Franklin pointed out, those issues can always be resolved by the submission of a provisional ballot.
The voter ID law isn’t going to improve noticeably the propriety of votes cast in Texas. However, it will intimidate and lessen the turnout of voters, especially those in certain political and ethnic groups.
But isn’t that the voter ID law’s purpose anyway?
Danny Root - Bulverde
San Antonio Express News - Sept. 23, 2011
Support President Obama's American Jobs Act Now
I am continually amazed at Rep. Lamar Smith's hypocrisy! I recently received his glossy, color, tri-fold "constituent survey" (sent at what cost to the taxpayer?) which states "currently 24 million americans want a full-time job but can't find one." Then his only proposed solutions to our massive unemployment problem are: 1) requiring employers to use E-verify to identify the 7 million illegal residents working in the US (at low wages jobs most Americans don't want.) How does that help 15 million Americans are unemployed, underemployed or working only part-time?)
Republicans rant about "job-killing" tax increases on the wealthy while the truth is tax rates are at their lowest since the 1950s. If tax cuts were the solution, where are the jobs that should have been created during the past 10 years since the Bush tax cuts have been in effect?
Republicans attack President Obama's Jobs Plan which would immediately create jobs to repair our roads, bridges, and schools, would send federal assistance to the states to avoid further layoffs of teachers, police, and firefighters, would give tax breaks to small businesses which hire new workers. Republicans have been in control of the House of Representatives for 9 months, where is their jobs creation plan? Speaker Boehner's new plan is to revise the tax code with lower rates, which again helps the wealthy, but where is the jobs creation? It is high time we all demand that our representatives stop being obstructionists and support Obama's jobs plan.
Brenda Witt - New Braunfels Herald Zeitung - Sept. 18,2011
Republicans rant about "job-killing" tax increases on the wealthy while the truth is tax rates are at their lowest since the 1950s. If tax cuts were the solution, where are the jobs that should have been created during the past 10 years since the Bush tax cuts have been in effect?
Republicans attack President Obama's Jobs Plan which would immediately create jobs to repair our roads, bridges, and schools, would send federal assistance to the states to avoid further layoffs of teachers, police, and firefighters, would give tax breaks to small businesses which hire new workers. Republicans have been in control of the House of Representatives for 9 months, where is their jobs creation plan? Speaker Boehner's new plan is to revise the tax code with lower rates, which again helps the wealthy, but where is the jobs creation? It is high time we all demand that our representatives stop being obstructionists and support Obama's jobs plan.
Brenda Witt - New Braunfels Herald Zeitung - Sept. 18,2011
The Clean Air Act on Hold
Once again President Obama has caved to pressure by the Chamber of Commerce and TEA Party Republicans; this time over whether or not to update smog standards in order to the protect Americans from increasing incidents of asthma. This means that the same standards put in place by George W. Bush and believed to violate the Clean Air Act by Obama’s EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, will remain in place for another two years while Americans suffer.
The excuse is that requiring additional scrubbers on pollution generating industrial plants will be too expensive and cost jobs. Tell that to the 12,000 or so people who die from pollution induced asthma and other respiratory conditions. I’ve got news for the Chamber, going to the emergency room nearly unable to breathe is too expensive. Jobs would be created by updating these regulations as new equipment would have to be purchased and installed and it could all be paid for by the record profits that corporate America is racking up while it isn’t hiring new employees.
The Mad Hatters in the TEA Party would have you believe that freedom and deregulation are synonymous but the air we breathe is shared by us all and if government doesn’t regulate what can be dumped in it, our air may not be fit to breathe for much longer. So TEA Party members I have news for you too, air and water are shared by all and if that makes them socialist – get over it.
JC Dufresne - New Braunfels Heraold Zeitung
Once again President Obama has caved to pressure by the Chamber of Commerce and TEA Party Republicans; this time over whether or not to update smog standards in order to the protect Americans from increasing incidents of asthma. This means that the same standards put in place by George W. Bush and believed to violate the Clean Air Act by Obama’s EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, will remain in place for another two years while Americans suffer.
The excuse is that requiring additional scrubbers on pollution generating industrial plants will be too expensive and cost jobs. Tell that to the 12,000 or so people who die from pollution induced asthma and other respiratory conditions. I’ve got news for the Chamber, going to the emergency room nearly unable to breathe is too expensive. Jobs would be created by updating these regulations as new equipment would have to be purchased and installed and it could all be paid for by the record profits that corporate America is racking up while it isn’t hiring new employees.
The Mad Hatters in the TEA Party would have you believe that freedom and deregulation are synonymous but the air we breathe is shared by us all and if government doesn’t regulate what can be dumped in it, our air may not be fit to breathe for much longer. So TEA Party members I have news for you too, air and water are shared by all and if that makes them socialist – get over it.
JC Dufresne - New Braunfels Heraold Zeitung
We Have TEA Party Republicans to Thank
We all owe a debt of gratitude to TEA Party Republicans like Quico Canseco and Lamar Smith who trashed America’s historically sterling credit rating and caused a 630 point drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Their sheer petulance over what is normally a simple housekeeping measure that has been passed dozens of times during both Democratic and Republican administrations, notably 19 times under Reagan alone, has added further drag on our already fragile economic recovery.
Taxpayers will foot the bill for higher interest rates on our national debt while simultaneously losing billions in the stock market which will undoubtedly lead to further job losses as Americans have less money to spend. All this is brought to us by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who promised to do everything in his power to make sure that President Obama doesn’t get re-elected.
So thank you Lamar Smith and Quico Canseco for showing America just how spiteful the TEA Party Republicans can be before the next election so we have our eyes wide open when next we vote.
JC Dufresne- New Braunfels Herald Zeitung
Sept. 2, 2011
Taxpayers will foot the bill for higher interest rates on our national debt while simultaneously losing billions in the stock market which will undoubtedly lead to further job losses as Americans have less money to spend. All this is brought to us by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who promised to do everything in his power to make sure that President Obama doesn’t get re-elected.
So thank you Lamar Smith and Quico Canseco for showing America just how spiteful the TEA Party Republicans can be before the next election so we have our eyes wide open when next we vote.
JC Dufresne- New Braunfels Herald Zeitung
Sept. 2, 2011
Do Call Canseco But Don't Thank Him
Recently, a half page ad in the Express-News, supporting Francisco Canseco, declared that President Obama’s Medicare plan would "balance the budget on the backs of seniors". The ad is referring to legislation introduced in both the House and the Senate that would require the pharmaceutical companies to pay significant rebates to the federal government for low income Medicare Part D participants who receive government subsidies. An analysis prepared for the American Action Network claims that at least 50 percent of the rebates paid would be recovered by the pharmaceutical companies by increasing their drug prices, leading to higher Part D premiums. The report concludes that annual costs for almost 18 million seniors would increase by as much as $208 per year. Basically, more affluent seniors would foot some of the cost of the government’s subsidies to those without the means to pay.
What the ad fails to mention is that Canseco voted for Paul Ryan's budget deficit plan which would cause seniors eligible for Medicare beginning in 2022 to pay twice as much out-of-pocket as they would otherwise have paid. The difference is more than $6000. When he supported Ryan's plan, Canseco also voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act which provides free annual checkups for those on Medicare and eliminates the Part D "doughnut hole".
The ad concludes with this gem: "Call Congressman Canseco and thank him for protecting Texas seniors". With this, American Action Network and Canseco have taken hypocrisy to a new level that may never be exceeded.
Sheila Angerer- San Antonio Express News
September 1, 2011
Recently, a half page ad in the Express-News, supporting Francisco Canseco, declared that President Obama’s Medicare plan would "balance the budget on the backs of seniors". The ad is referring to legislation introduced in both the House and the Senate that would require the pharmaceutical companies to pay significant rebates to the federal government for low income Medicare Part D participants who receive government subsidies. An analysis prepared for the American Action Network claims that at least 50 percent of the rebates paid would be recovered by the pharmaceutical companies by increasing their drug prices, leading to higher Part D premiums. The report concludes that annual costs for almost 18 million seniors would increase by as much as $208 per year. Basically, more affluent seniors would foot some of the cost of the government’s subsidies to those without the means to pay.
What the ad fails to mention is that Canseco voted for Paul Ryan's budget deficit plan which would cause seniors eligible for Medicare beginning in 2022 to pay twice as much out-of-pocket as they would otherwise have paid. The difference is more than $6000. When he supported Ryan's plan, Canseco also voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act which provides free annual checkups for those on Medicare and eliminates the Part D "doughnut hole".
The ad concludes with this gem: "Call Congressman Canseco and thank him for protecting Texas seniors". With this, American Action Network and Canseco have taken hypocrisy to a new level that may never be exceeded.
Sheila Angerer- San Antonio Express News
September 1, 2011
July, August 2011
Contributors: Stephen Baird Harold Brueckner Jim Denton Melissa Dufresne Kat Edmiston Dee Guinn Mike Henry ValRae Lenius-Torres Richard Maddern Jonathan Margolis Bob Nottington Donald Nguyen Cyndy Owens John Parker Kathleen To Billie Veach Peggy Vieira Nellie Wilson
Lamar Smith Constituent Getting No Response
Town Hall meetings are an opportunity for elected officials to meet and greet constituents. It seems reasonable that Town Hall meetings should be held frequently to inform and involve the public in dialogue. In wanting to get to see and talk to Representative Lamar Smith, 21st District, Texas, an earnest attempt has been made to find dates and times of Representative Smith's Town Hall meeting schedule while he was in Texas on recess. For several weeks and numerous e-mails, in addition to a letter that was mailed to three of Representative Lamar Smith's offices in Washington, D.C, Austin, and San Antonio, there is still no response to these requests regarding Town Hall Meeting schedules.
Having met and been impressed with his courteous staff in San Antonio is certainly not the same as meeting Representative Lamar Smith in person. To Representative Smith's credit, however, email responses have been followed by a boiler-plate thank you from his offices that essentially say that they would answer as soon as possible. No real answer, however. My concern, curiosity, and need to know what our Representative Smith is doing and plans on doing to deal with the millions of unemployed across this country as well as Texas has prompted this question: Why is there no response to my request to know where and when Representative Smith's Town Hall meetings are scheduled? Something is not right here. Actions speak louder than words, Representative Smith. Where are the Jobs, Jobs, Jobs! Remember?
ValRae Lenius-Torres, Canyon Lake
New Braunfels Herald- Zeitung - August 27, 2011
Having met and been impressed with his courteous staff in San Antonio is certainly not the same as meeting Representative Lamar Smith in person. To Representative Smith's credit, however, email responses have been followed by a boiler-plate thank you from his offices that essentially say that they would answer as soon as possible. No real answer, however. My concern, curiosity, and need to know what our Representative Smith is doing and plans on doing to deal with the millions of unemployed across this country as well as Texas has prompted this question: Why is there no response to my request to know where and when Representative Smith's Town Hall meetings are scheduled? Something is not right here. Actions speak louder than words, Representative Smith. Where are the Jobs, Jobs, Jobs! Remember?
ValRae Lenius-Torres, Canyon Lake
New Braunfels Herald- Zeitung - August 27, 2011
Not Created Equal
President Barack Obama has proposed extending the payroll tax cut for low-income Americans. Since the tea party acronym stands for “taxed enough already” you'd think tea party Republicans would jump on that and agree with the president for a change. You'd think wrong.
Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, told The Associated Press: “It's always a net positive to let taxpayers keep more of what they earn, but not all tax relief is created equal for the purposes of helping to get the economy moving again.”
Rep. David Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said he also opposed the 12-month tax cut because it would cost the government about $120 billion next year if it were renewed.
The Washington Post says the Bush tax cuts amount to about $130 billion per year. I guess that means Republicans will be against renewing those too.
Why haven't local Republican congressmen, Lamar Smith and Quico Canseco, come out in favor of either continuing the payroll tax cuts or not renewing the Bush tax cuts? Is expecting logical consistency too much to ask? It looks like Smith, Canseco and Hensarling never saw a millionaire tax break they didn't like.
Melissa Dufresne, Cibolo
San Antonio Express News - August 26, 2011
Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, told The Associated Press: “It's always a net positive to let taxpayers keep more of what they earn, but not all tax relief is created equal for the purposes of helping to get the economy moving again.”
Rep. David Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said he also opposed the 12-month tax cut because it would cost the government about $120 billion next year if it were renewed.
The Washington Post says the Bush tax cuts amount to about $130 billion per year. I guess that means Republicans will be against renewing those too.
Why haven't local Republican congressmen, Lamar Smith and Quico Canseco, come out in favor of either continuing the payroll tax cuts or not renewing the Bush tax cuts? Is expecting logical consistency too much to ask? It looks like Smith, Canseco and Hensarling never saw a millionaire tax break they didn't like.
Melissa Dufresne, Cibolo
San Antonio Express News - August 26, 2011
What's Wrong with Being Middle-Class
How revealing Beverly Nuckols' Point-Counterpoint column was!
"I don't remembering hearing that if I worked hard I could grow up to be middle class," she said. And what is wrong with being middle class? Was that meant to be a slur? To me, being middle class means being comfortable in many ways. It means, comfort in knowing that a medical emergency or illness won't wipe out my savings or require that I mortgage my house; comfort in spending peaceful, happy time with my children and grandchildren without nagging fear for our financial futures; comfort in being able to drive a comfortable, environmentally responsible car with air conditioning (excuse me, maybe she considers that a luxury) that I can afford to repair if it breaks down. It also means: Time to spend on enjoyable activities like gardening instead of working a second or third job. Time and money to take a vacation from everyday routines and concerns with a relaxed frame of mind. Being able to save for retirement instead of fearing that I will some day be unable to work. And, falling asleep at night feeling peaceful at the end of the day instead of anxious about the day to come.
Yes, America was built on many dreams. We can tell our children that they may one day "grow up to be president", or that they may "start a billion dollar business." But we should also be able to tell them, in the meantime, that they will be safe, well fed, secure, educated, and able to enjoy a happy childhood. We do not all have delusions of grandeur.
Some of us value peace, tranquility, and contentment more than being president or making a billion dollars. We then have the luxury to look outside ourselves and see how we can make things better for everyone.
Cyndy Owens - New Braunfels Herald Zeitung - 8-2-2011
Jonathan Gurwitz, in his recent editorial, said “..Obama has presided over an unprecedented expansion of government spending and government debt.” Gurwitz’s remarks are typical of the sort of misinformation from those who are on a mission to discredit our President.
Comparing the three years under Obama (including 2011 projections) to the previous 3 year period (2006-2008):
See www.usgovernmentspending.com and www.usgovernmentrevenue.com.
1) Due to the recession, tax revenues were lower by $1.06 trillion.
2) Welfare was higher by $0.57 trillion due to the substantial increase in unemployment benefits and payment of insurance premiums for the jobless.
3) Defense spending was higher by $0.6 trillion; Obama made no changes except to authorize the surge in Afghanistan recommended by continuing Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates.
4) Pension benefits were higher by $0.32 trillion – Obama made no changes to Social Security. Baby boomers are retiring as we all knew they would.
5) Health care benefits were higher by $0.61 trillion – Caused by Medicare-eligible baby boomers plus health care costs that are increasing nearly twice as much as the rate of inflation.
Adding the lost revenue to the expenditures explained above, one arrives at a number of $3.16 trillion of deficits.
Face the truth, Mr. Gurwitz. President Obama was tossed a ‘losing hand’ when he took office. And, hopefully, even you understand that drastic spending cuts at this time would surely take us into another recession. We need a long-term plan that gradually phases in a combination of tax increases and spending cuts.
Stephen Baird - San Antonio Express-News
Comparing the three years under Obama (including 2011 projections) to the previous 3 year period (2006-2008):
See www.usgovernmentspending.com and www.usgovernmentrevenue.com.
1) Due to the recession, tax revenues were lower by $1.06 trillion.
2) Welfare was higher by $0.57 trillion due to the substantial increase in unemployment benefits and payment of insurance premiums for the jobless.
3) Defense spending was higher by $0.6 trillion; Obama made no changes except to authorize the surge in Afghanistan recommended by continuing Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates.
4) Pension benefits were higher by $0.32 trillion – Obama made no changes to Social Security. Baby boomers are retiring as we all knew they would.
5) Health care benefits were higher by $0.61 trillion – Caused by Medicare-eligible baby boomers plus health care costs that are increasing nearly twice as much as the rate of inflation.
Adding the lost revenue to the expenditures explained above, one arrives at a number of $3.16 trillion of deficits.
Face the truth, Mr. Gurwitz. President Obama was tossed a ‘losing hand’ when he took office. And, hopefully, even you understand that drastic spending cuts at this time would surely take us into another recession. We need a long-term plan that gradually phases in a combination of tax increases and spending cuts.
Stephen Baird - San Antonio Express-News
Letter to Editor:
Betty Clifford's 7/1 letter contains a number of silly assertions regarding the national debt:
1. Families often run up charges more than their income when they buy a place to live. Often the mortgage is more than two or three times the family income.
2. Shouldn't the US government have run up a huge debt, much more than the debt now, to fight WW2?
3. Didn't the huge spending and debt of WW2 also pull US out of the Great Depression?
4. The US government ran deficits from WW2 to 1980, but the economy was growing faster so the debt decreased from more than 125% of the economy to 33%.
5. From 1980 to Jan 2009, the debt increased as a percentage of the economy under Reagan and Bush I to 66%, decreased to 60% under Clinton, and increased to 81% under Bush II. Now we are in a big financial ditch again and need stimulus in public infrastructure
to pull us out.
6. In the 1950s, when the US had a marginal income tax rate of 70% or more and the corporate income tax accounted for 40% of federal revenues, business was booming and manufacturing accounted for 50% of corporate profits. Since Reagan started dismantling the New Deal protections, manufacturing has sunk below 10% and the financial sector now accounts for more than 30%.
Peggy Vieira - New Braunfels Herald Zeitung - July 17, 2011
Betty Clifford's 7/1 letter contains a number of silly assertions regarding the national debt:
1. Families often run up charges more than their income when they buy a place to live. Often the mortgage is more than two or three times the family income.
2. Shouldn't the US government have run up a huge debt, much more than the debt now, to fight WW2?
3. Didn't the huge spending and debt of WW2 also pull US out of the Great Depression?
4. The US government ran deficits from WW2 to 1980, but the economy was growing faster so the debt decreased from more than 125% of the economy to 33%.
5. From 1980 to Jan 2009, the debt increased as a percentage of the economy under Reagan and Bush I to 66%, decreased to 60% under Clinton, and increased to 81% under Bush II. Now we are in a big financial ditch again and need stimulus in public infrastructure
to pull us out.
6. In the 1950s, when the US had a marginal income tax rate of 70% or more and the corporate income tax accounted for 40% of federal revenues, business was booming and manufacturing accounted for 50% of corporate profits. Since Reagan started dismantling the New Deal protections, manufacturing has sunk below 10% and the financial sector now accounts for more than 30%.
Peggy Vieira - New Braunfels Herald Zeitung - July 17, 2011
A Letter to the Editor of the Kettering Oakwood Times, Ohio
Affordable Care Act - a Decent, Good Law
Reading Eric Weber’s column on June 23rd bring back the memories of Tea Party members shouting “No government in health care, just don’t touch my Medicare” during the debate on health care reform (Medicare is indeed run by the government). It would also help if Mr. Weber knows what the Law of the Land is called, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Some refer to it as the ACA.
What is being currently debated in the courts is not about the ACA but rather one provision, the individual mandate, among hundreds of other provisions, some related to regulations of the insurance industries, some related to patients, and others related to physicians. In sports, if the score is 17 – 2 and you have 17 points compared to the opposition having only 2 points, one would surmise that you are looking pretty well. Indeed, in the court challenges so far, 13 federal judges have dismissed completely legal challenges of the ACA right off the bat, based on these having no merits whatsoever. In 5 cases where the courts have ruled on merits and not on procedural issues, the score is 3 – 2 in favor of the ACA. Three courts have ruled that the ACA Law is fully constitutional. In the other 2 cases, the individual mandate was ruled unconstitutional in 1 case (Virginia) but the ACA is allowed to continue with its timetable of implementation. In the Florida verdict, the judge ruled that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and because this is such a prominent provision of the law, therefore the entire ACA must be unconstitutional. Yet, Judge Vinson did not issue an injunction order, but he allowed the ACA to continue to be implemented until such time when the Supreme Court rules. Conventional wisdom among Constitutional law experts says that Judge Vinson truly overreached with his verdict. And most recently, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled that the individual mandate is fully constitutional, agreeing with the Michigan court previously. 17 – 2!
A brief lesson on the individual mandate reveals that it was the Republicans (Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the Heritage Foundation, and others) who cooked it up along with the insurance industry lobbyists when they were trying to shoot down Hilary Care. Yet, when the Democrats introduced this concept into the ACA, now it is an affront to personal liberty. For a private insurance market to work well and fairly, the individual mandate ensures that no one is getting a free ride, and it allows each and everyone else greater protection and a more affordable price of coverage. The individual mandate is one constant denominator that is the foundation for any progressive health care system in any successful modernized and industrialized nation of the world, with the exception of the US. By having the mandate, the number of uninsured patients is greatly reduced, which is important and crucial to have a healthy nation. It also prevents “adverse selection”, when healthy and young people choose not to have insurance. This causes the premiums to skyrocket for everybody else, you, me, and the Tea Party. That cannot be fair, can it? By having everyone insured, local hospitals would be happy because the uncompensated care (patients who would show up to the ER room with no insurance) would be greatly reduced.
Mr. Weber also quoted Plato speaking about knowledge instead of numbers. The following knowledge about the ACA tells me that patients with chronic diabetes, hypertension, cancer, asthma, children born with congenital birth defects cannot be discriminated against because of these pre-existing condition, no lifetime caps on patients so no patients have to risk medical bankruptcy, insurance companies are banned from the practice of rescission (dropping patients when they are diagnosed with serious illnesses), young adults (less than 28 yrs in Ohio) without a job or insurance can still stay on the parents’ policy, small businesses can claim tax credits for their employees’ coverage, more than 109,000 Ohio Medicare recipients received a $250 check this past year for the prescription drug purchase if they are in the donut hole, and this year nationwide 478,272 seniors saved $260 million thanks to a 50% discount on brand name prescription drugs, and the donut hole will be eliminated by 2014, preventative and wellness care are now free under the ACA for both Medicare and commercial insurance patients, more money is going into training of primary care physicians, for building of new or renovating community health centers, and much more.
Mr. Weber is talking about the ultimate goal of the progressives is to create a government run health care system, similar to England. Does he know that England actually owns all the hospitals and doctors? Is anyone proposing uncle Sam buying up Kettering Medical Center, Miami Valley Hospital, Children’s Medical Center and putting all the doctors on the government’s payroll? Not in anyone’s dream, not anytime soon. He also knocks the universal health plan of Massachusetts by calling it Obamney care. He does not realize that patients and physicians alike love their health plan in Massachusetts. Is the current health care system similar to Canada? Hardly, because Canada has a single payer system and in the US, the insurance industry is alive, thriving, and not going away any time soon.
By making these statements, Mr. Weber shows his lack of understanding of what the ACA is about. It is about the patients, about regulating the insurance industry on giving fair and deserving access to care to patients without cheating them or getting rich on the backs of patients, about getting the patients healthier and as a nation, we deserve better.
The ACA is only a first step and many of its provisions need to be strengthened even more. The above mentioned provisions which were enacted starting in 2010 tell me, as a physician, that this Law of the Land is a decent, good, and kind one, a law worthy to protect, to preserve, and to defend.
Donald Nguyen, MD, FAAP; Doctors for America
What is being currently debated in the courts is not about the ACA but rather one provision, the individual mandate, among hundreds of other provisions, some related to regulations of the insurance industries, some related to patients, and others related to physicians. In sports, if the score is 17 – 2 and you have 17 points compared to the opposition having only 2 points, one would surmise that you are looking pretty well. Indeed, in the court challenges so far, 13 federal judges have dismissed completely legal challenges of the ACA right off the bat, based on these having no merits whatsoever. In 5 cases where the courts have ruled on merits and not on procedural issues, the score is 3 – 2 in favor of the ACA. Three courts have ruled that the ACA Law is fully constitutional. In the other 2 cases, the individual mandate was ruled unconstitutional in 1 case (Virginia) but the ACA is allowed to continue with its timetable of implementation. In the Florida verdict, the judge ruled that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and because this is such a prominent provision of the law, therefore the entire ACA must be unconstitutional. Yet, Judge Vinson did not issue an injunction order, but he allowed the ACA to continue to be implemented until such time when the Supreme Court rules. Conventional wisdom among Constitutional law experts says that Judge Vinson truly overreached with his verdict. And most recently, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled that the individual mandate is fully constitutional, agreeing with the Michigan court previously. 17 – 2!
A brief lesson on the individual mandate reveals that it was the Republicans (Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the Heritage Foundation, and others) who cooked it up along with the insurance industry lobbyists when they were trying to shoot down Hilary Care. Yet, when the Democrats introduced this concept into the ACA, now it is an affront to personal liberty. For a private insurance market to work well and fairly, the individual mandate ensures that no one is getting a free ride, and it allows each and everyone else greater protection and a more affordable price of coverage. The individual mandate is one constant denominator that is the foundation for any progressive health care system in any successful modernized and industrialized nation of the world, with the exception of the US. By having the mandate, the number of uninsured patients is greatly reduced, which is important and crucial to have a healthy nation. It also prevents “adverse selection”, when healthy and young people choose not to have insurance. This causes the premiums to skyrocket for everybody else, you, me, and the Tea Party. That cannot be fair, can it? By having everyone insured, local hospitals would be happy because the uncompensated care (patients who would show up to the ER room with no insurance) would be greatly reduced.
Mr. Weber also quoted Plato speaking about knowledge instead of numbers. The following knowledge about the ACA tells me that patients with chronic diabetes, hypertension, cancer, asthma, children born with congenital birth defects cannot be discriminated against because of these pre-existing condition, no lifetime caps on patients so no patients have to risk medical bankruptcy, insurance companies are banned from the practice of rescission (dropping patients when they are diagnosed with serious illnesses), young adults (less than 28 yrs in Ohio) without a job or insurance can still stay on the parents’ policy, small businesses can claim tax credits for their employees’ coverage, more than 109,000 Ohio Medicare recipients received a $250 check this past year for the prescription drug purchase if they are in the donut hole, and this year nationwide 478,272 seniors saved $260 million thanks to a 50% discount on brand name prescription drugs, and the donut hole will be eliminated by 2014, preventative and wellness care are now free under the ACA for both Medicare and commercial insurance patients, more money is going into training of primary care physicians, for building of new or renovating community health centers, and much more.
Mr. Weber is talking about the ultimate goal of the progressives is to create a government run health care system, similar to England. Does he know that England actually owns all the hospitals and doctors? Is anyone proposing uncle Sam buying up Kettering Medical Center, Miami Valley Hospital, Children’s Medical Center and putting all the doctors on the government’s payroll? Not in anyone’s dream, not anytime soon. He also knocks the universal health plan of Massachusetts by calling it Obamney care. He does not realize that patients and physicians alike love their health plan in Massachusetts. Is the current health care system similar to Canada? Hardly, because Canada has a single payer system and in the US, the insurance industry is alive, thriving, and not going away any time soon.
By making these statements, Mr. Weber shows his lack of understanding of what the ACA is about. It is about the patients, about regulating the insurance industry on giving fair and deserving access to care to patients without cheating them or getting rich on the backs of patients, about getting the patients healthier and as a nation, we deserve better.
The ACA is only a first step and many of its provisions need to be strengthened even more. The above mentioned provisions which were enacted starting in 2010 tell me, as a physician, that this Law of the Land is a decent, good, and kind one, a law worthy to protect, to preserve, and to defend.
Donald Nguyen, MD, FAAP; Doctors for America
Get Rid of Tax Cuts
When former President George H.W. Bush referred to Reaganomics as “voodoo economics”, he was right on target. Yet, Republicans continue to claim that lowering taxes will result in higher revenues. David Stockman, while serving as Director of the Office of Management and Budget for President Reagan, said in 1981 in an interview with the Atlantic Monthly “Reagan’s tax act was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate…It’s kind of hard to sell trickle down.”
Stockman recently said “Extending the Bush tax cuts is rank demagoguery. So to stand before the public and raw rub this anti-tax sentiment, the Republican Party, as much as it pains me to say this, should be ashamed of themselves.” See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Stockman.
In 2009, Paul Krugman, a noted economist, estimated that the tax cuts implemented by President George W. Bush would cost a total of $1.8 trillion in lost revenue. When asked about this number, Brian Riedl, who analyzes the federal budget for the conservative Heritage Institute, said that Krugman’s estimate was in the right ballpark but that it only considered the lost revenue and didn’t account for the economic activity that lower taxes generate. Riedl estimated that the stimulative effect of the tax cuts could shave about 25% off of the $1.8 trillion. Accepting his number, the cuts cost us $1.35 trillion.
See http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/24/paul-krugman/bush-tax-cuts-health-care-probably/
The Bush tax cuts, if extended for another decade, would result in more than $2.1 trillion in lost revenue, according to Goldman Sachs. Let them expire in 2013.
Stephen Baird - San Antonio Express News - July 12, 2011
Stockman recently said “Extending the Bush tax cuts is rank demagoguery. So to stand before the public and raw rub this anti-tax sentiment, the Republican Party, as much as it pains me to say this, should be ashamed of themselves.” See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Stockman.
In 2009, Paul Krugman, a noted economist, estimated that the tax cuts implemented by President George W. Bush would cost a total of $1.8 trillion in lost revenue. When asked about this number, Brian Riedl, who analyzes the federal budget for the conservative Heritage Institute, said that Krugman’s estimate was in the right ballpark but that it only considered the lost revenue and didn’t account for the economic activity that lower taxes generate. Riedl estimated that the stimulative effect of the tax cuts could shave about 25% off of the $1.8 trillion. Accepting his number, the cuts cost us $1.35 trillion.
See http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/24/paul-krugman/bush-tax-cuts-health-care-probably/
The Bush tax cuts, if extended for another decade, would result in more than $2.1 trillion in lost revenue, according to Goldman Sachs. Let them expire in 2013.
Stephen Baird - San Antonio Express News - July 12, 2011
May, June 2011
Contributors: Stephen Baird Harold Brueckner Dolores Guinn Mike Henry Kathleen To Billie Veach
After hearing how his Republican colleagues in the House were taken to the woodshed by their constituents over their votes for Paul Ryan’s bill to dismantle Medicare, Rep. Lamar Smith devised a plan to disguise a right-wing Obama-bashing as a ‘town hall’ meeting. Smith was the guest of Joe Pags at the WOAI Fox Studio for the event, which was broadcast on 1200AM and attended by 16 cheerleaders. The Joe/Lamar part of the show lasted for an hour, during which time no one but the two of them spoke. The question and answer segment at the end, interrupted by a break for the news, was designed to fill the minimum requirement for calling the occasion a town hall meeting. Then a funny thing happened at the forum. There were two attendees who were not cheerleaders. One asked Lamar why he voted to end Medicare and give more tax breaks to the rich when the majority of Americans were opposed to that. Uh, oh….Smith’s response was “What vote was that?” The questioner answered “Aren’t you in the House?” Smith then repeated the party line that privatizing Medicare was just great but seniors 55 and older would not have to participate in the new plan. If that looks and sounds fishy, trust me, it is.
According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, under Ryan’s plan, seniors would end up paying almost twice as much out of their own pockets, or more than $12,510 a year, versus the traditional Medicare plan now in effect.
Stephen Baird
New Braunfels Herald- Zeitung May 24, 2011
According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, under Ryan’s plan, seniors would end up paying almost twice as much out of their own pockets, or more than $12,510 a year, versus the traditional Medicare plan now in effect.
Stephen Baird
New Braunfels Herald- Zeitung May 24, 2011
March, April 2011
Contributors: Harold Brueckner Katherine Edmiston Dolores Guinn Mike Henry ED Lindsay Steve Love Kathleen To
Dropping the ball: Democratic Party style.
“If the left ever wants to regain the vigor that powered earlier eras of liberal reform, it needs to rebuild the infrastructure of economic populism that we've ignored for too long. Figuring out how to do that is the central task of the new decade.” Plutocracy Now: What Wisconsin Is Really About. by Kevin Drum, March/April issue of Mother Jones. http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-labor-union-decline?page=4 As this article was graciously referred to me, so I refer it to anyone who wants to get a better picture of why the middle class is in such dire straits today. We have all been taught about the power of Wall Street and how the business sector has entirely too much influence. We have also been taught how the GOP has cleverly used “family” values to turn middle class voters against their allies in the African American community but then join them in voting against their shared economic self-interest. This we can all quote chapter and verse. We all know about the Republican “Southern strategy.” What Drum calls our attention to is how the liberal community took its eye off the economic ball (living wages, universal national healthcare, job security, poverty, union membership, etc.) to pursue its own menu of social values: rights for women, the disabled, blacks and gays and the availability of abortion providers. When was the last time poverty was mentioned in a State of the Union address? Notice how M.L. King, Jr.’s career is framed almost entirely around civil rights and little or no attention given to his work to make us aware of poverty. And so today, according to Drum, neither national party has, at its core, institution dedicated to protecting and advancing the economic interests of the middle class. It is a debate between the conflicting social values of the two parties, neither of which includes basic human needs of food, shelter, healthcare and clothing. Millions lose their homes and jobs and the headlines are captured by a fight over gay’s right to marry. We fight a year over a healthcare bill that still leaves millions without insurance and everyone still vulnerable to insurance company profit motives. The very vocabulary of our political debate is framed in Wall Street jargon not human terms. Nobody talks of full employment! Nobody talks of living wages. Jobs that once paid $28/hr have been replaced by those paying $8/hr. and nobody seems to notice the difference…except the persons taking the $20 cut in income. So, who will lead the way to refocus our attention on the basis? Where will the leadership come to debate human values once again? Where will we look for the voices that call our country to being as concerned for basic human necessities of life as we are of our inalienable rights? Will the Democratic Party lead the way or will it have to come from some third party? Stay tuned for the latest development!
Steve Love
January, February 2011
Contributors: Dee Guinn Mike Henry Tricia Henry Steve Love Kathleen To
Scott Burns Strikes Out Again on National Debt
(Dallas Morning News, Pg. 1 Business sect.,2-27-2011)
Scott Burns once again fails to tell us when or even why the sky will fall. In this latest effort, he tells us that “When a nation has debt equal to its annual output, the annual cost of interest on the debt is like to be greater than the annual growth of the economy,” and “This can start a slide toward a hopeless debt spiral.” Oh, God! A hopeless debt spiral! We are doomed if the national debt equals the GDP!!!
Well, maybe and maybe not. In 1945 the GDP was $223 billion and the national debt was $260 billion and we did not slide into a hopeless debt spiral. Why? Because a nation’s ability to pay its debt is only tangentially linked to the GDP. It is more closely linked to the tax rates. What difference does it make what the GDP is, if nobody is paying taxes? The government pays it bills with taxes, not with the GDP! Reckon my credit card debt has something to do with how much cash I have?
In 1945 the top marginal tax rate was 94% on any income above $200,000. Might it be that today’s marginal tax rates of way less than a third of that rate has something to do with why our national debt keep growing? I know how the Koch brothers and their cousins on Wall Street suffer at today’s “confiscatory” tax rates. Poor babies! Thank God, back in those war years, we had corporate leaders that were made of sterner stuff and deserved being called part of “the Greatest Generation.” As for today’s Wall Street elite…well, they are just a bunch of spoiled crybabies and tax-dodgers! And Burn’s effort to delink the national debt from the tax rates is, I’m sure, welcomed by Wall Street, but is of little help to his readers as they try to get a grip on why we are in debt as a nation.
Stephen (Steve) L. Love
slove4ushr@aol.com
Scott Burns once again fails to tell us when or even why the sky will fall. In this latest effort, he tells us that “When a nation has debt equal to its annual output, the annual cost of interest on the debt is like to be greater than the annual growth of the economy,” and “This can start a slide toward a hopeless debt spiral.” Oh, God! A hopeless debt spiral! We are doomed if the national debt equals the GDP!!!
Well, maybe and maybe not. In 1945 the GDP was $223 billion and the national debt was $260 billion and we did not slide into a hopeless debt spiral. Why? Because a nation’s ability to pay its debt is only tangentially linked to the GDP. It is more closely linked to the tax rates. What difference does it make what the GDP is, if nobody is paying taxes? The government pays it bills with taxes, not with the GDP! Reckon my credit card debt has something to do with how much cash I have?
In 1945 the top marginal tax rate was 94% on any income above $200,000. Might it be that today’s marginal tax rates of way less than a third of that rate has something to do with why our national debt keep growing? I know how the Koch brothers and their cousins on Wall Street suffer at today’s “confiscatory” tax rates. Poor babies! Thank God, back in those war years, we had corporate leaders that were made of sterner stuff and deserved being called part of “the Greatest Generation.” As for today’s Wall Street elite…well, they are just a bunch of spoiled crybabies and tax-dodgers! And Burn’s effort to delink the national debt from the tax rates is, I’m sure, welcomed by Wall Street, but is of little help to his readers as they try to get a grip on why we are in debt as a nation.
Stephen (Steve) L. Love
slove4ushr@aol.com
December, 2010
Contributors: Roger Beauchamp Tricia Henry Mike Henry Steve Love John Parker Kathleen To BUZZFLASH
Why Domestic Employment is in the Tank
Caterpillar hires as many people overseas as it does in the U.S. because there is a massive building boom overseas and there is nothing in the U.S. comparable.
"There is a huge difference between what is good for American companies vs. what is good for the American economy", says Robert Scott of the Economic Policy Institute. The dollar being the dominant international currency, "companies will go where there are fast-growing markets and big profits", saysJeffery Sach, economist at Columbia University. The fast-growing markets are where the middle class with disposable income is growing. By 2015, the middle class in Asia will be as large as that in Europe and N. America.
Big profits do not take place where the margin between the fixed cost of an item and the selling price is constantly shrinking. Wal-Mart is profitable, not because it makes a reasonable profit on every item it sells but because it makes a minimal profit on massive numbers of items sold. Small businesses cannot operate on a Wal-Mart business model.
David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's, reports that half of the S&P's revenue now comes from overseas. Which is just another way to say that Wall Street does not just share Manhattan Island with the United Nations, it shares its place in the world as an international institution.
So, beginning in the late 20th Century, there appears to have been set in motion a process by which the U.S. economy has been made further and further irrelevant. The dollar is still the currency of the world however, when it comes to being the producers of goods the world wants to buy or being the creative center for innovations, no one is looking to the United States anymore. The days of an American-centric world economy are gone.
What passes for a domestic economy is one gigantic system designed to transfer what wealth the middle class still has, after three decades of stagnate wages and a lowering living standard of living, to the moneyed elite: the 0.01% of the population who control the lion share of the nation's wealth. And when that transfer is complete we will join the other banana republics of the world. Or then, we shall become a nation of shop-keepers unless we have the political leadership to challenge almost every element of what is accepted as economic common wisdom and focuses like a laser on rebuilding the middle class by setting the nation on a course of nothing less than a complete reshaping of the American economy and modernization of its infrastructure.
Stephen L. Love
Dallas, TX
"There is a huge difference between what is good for American companies vs. what is good for the American economy", says Robert Scott of the Economic Policy Institute. The dollar being the dominant international currency, "companies will go where there are fast-growing markets and big profits", saysJeffery Sach, economist at Columbia University. The fast-growing markets are where the middle class with disposable income is growing. By 2015, the middle class in Asia will be as large as that in Europe and N. America.
Big profits do not take place where the margin between the fixed cost of an item and the selling price is constantly shrinking. Wal-Mart is profitable, not because it makes a reasonable profit on every item it sells but because it makes a minimal profit on massive numbers of items sold. Small businesses cannot operate on a Wal-Mart business model.
David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's, reports that half of the S&P's revenue now comes from overseas. Which is just another way to say that Wall Street does not just share Manhattan Island with the United Nations, it shares its place in the world as an international institution.
So, beginning in the late 20th Century, there appears to have been set in motion a process by which the U.S. economy has been made further and further irrelevant. The dollar is still the currency of the world however, when it comes to being the producers of goods the world wants to buy or being the creative center for innovations, no one is looking to the United States anymore. The days of an American-centric world economy are gone.
What passes for a domestic economy is one gigantic system designed to transfer what wealth the middle class still has, after three decades of stagnate wages and a lowering living standard of living, to the moneyed elite: the 0.01% of the population who control the lion share of the nation's wealth. And when that transfer is complete we will join the other banana republics of the world. Or then, we shall become a nation of shop-keepers unless we have the political leadership to challenge almost every element of what is accepted as economic common wisdom and focuses like a laser on rebuilding the middle class by setting the nation on a course of nothing less than a complete reshaping of the American economy and modernization of its infrastructure.
Stephen L. Love
Dallas, TX
November, 2010
Contributors: Dana Copp Katherine Edmiston Ed Lindsay Niki Nichols Kathleen To
October, 2010
Contributors: Harold Brueckner Katherine Edmiston Mike Henry Phillip Mitchell Kathleen To
September, 2010
Contributors: Katherine Edmiston Mike Henry Ed Mampel Niki Nichols Kathleen To
