Email letters, February 10, 2014

Thanks for visiting The Daily Sentinel

Subscribers and registered users, log in to continue reading for free*

Forgot your password?    

Register to read for free! Become a subscriber

* 7-day subscribers have unlimited access to online content.
Registered users may read 12 articles per month.


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

As Meg and David Cooper aptly express (“Front-page article on report on jobs, ACA was appreciated”), the Sentinel deserves kudos for once again exposing the blatant dishonesty of our sorry-excuse-for-a-Congressman – “Teapublican” Scott Tipton.

On Wednesday, a Sentinel front-page headline read:  “Health care law means fewer on job, analysts say” – referring to the CBO report predicting that (by 2021) the equivalent of 2.3 million currently-employed Americans would opt to work less because of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”).

Later on Wednesday, “Jumping Frog” Tipton leaped onto the right-wing and FoxNoise “talking points” bandwagon and issued a formal “Statement on CBO Report’s Projected Job Losses”, in which he falsely claimed that the CBO report had confirmed what he was expecting all along – that the ACA “will cost the economy millions of jobs”.

On Thursday, the Sentinel’s front-page headlines was:  “Fact check:  Anti-‘Obamacare’ chorus is off key over health care act, job loss”, which accurately reported what Tipton already knew – that the report predicted a future reduction in labor supply (people willing to work), not fewer jobs being produced by the economy.

Thus, fact-free Tipton cynically turned what could be a good thing (fewer people trapped in jobs just to retain access to health insurance, thereby freeing-up jobs and/or working hours for others) into a bad thing (“job-destroying ObamaCare!”).

Of course, Tipton has not issued a correction—even after FoxNoise realized it was not being “fair and balanced”.  Rather, on Sunday, Tipton’s weekly “Update” re-circulated that same falsehhod – claiming that the ACA “will cost millions of American jobs”.

Actually, this latest CBO report in no way contradicts economists’ previous predictions that the ACA will likely stimulate the creation of 250,000 to 400,000 new jobs annually – particularly in health care related fields – even if some folks retire or opt to work less.

Paraphrasing the opening line of his “Statement”, Scott Tipton is “proving to be one of the worst Congressmen ever elected” from Western Colorado.

Harry McDonald’s timely letter – “Government employees provide services and support economy” – provides an instructive lesson in basic macro-economics that truly sentient Sentinel readers, our sorry-excuse-for-a-Congressman Scott Tipton, and his ideologically like-minded, fact-free, bubble-headed fellow-travelers should heed.

While Republicans still repeat the same simplistic mantras that “government doesn’t create jobs” and “they didn’t build that”, what history has taught economists over the past 80 years is that government can indeed “create jobs” – both directly within government itself (i.e., teachers, firemen, police, EPA inspectors, and even IRS bureaucrats) and/or indirectly (by stimulating the overall demand for goods and services with investments in Food Stamps, unemployment benefits, infrastructure, and even military procurement).

Yet, the 3rd C.D. is still represented by a “leaping frog Teapublican” who rejects and/or distorts all facts inconsistent with his long-discredited ideologically-driven bogus beliefs.

The depth of Tipton’s habitual dishonesty was proven on October 25, 2013, when he lied to his local constituency at his “Town Hall Meeting” in Grand Junction by denying that he voted to “shut down” the government, which cost the economy some $24 billion.

What went entirely unreported at the time was that Tipton also distributed a handout that distorted the CBO’s ten-year economic forecast by adding another twenty years of bogus numbers ginned-up by House Republicans – to “prove” that “spending is the problem”, when every objective analysis concludes that inadequate revenues is the real “problem”.

Most recently, Tipton has been distorting the CBO’s report that the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) would induce the equivalent of 2.3 million currently employed Americans to opt for fewer working hours as “proving” that the ACA “will cost millions of American jobs” – when economists predict that it will create 250,000 to 400,000 jobs annually (particularly, in health-related sectors).

With the 2014 mid-term election fast approaching, it’s time to dump Tipton.

Eileen O’Toole’s letter – “Constitution’s raison d’etre was to take power from states” – should remind Sentinel readers that the on-going debate over “Gun Rights” and the meaning of the Second Amendment is eerily reminiscent of the 1850s’ Slavery debate. 

Indeed, the most strident proponents of absolutist Gun Rights have much in common – both ideologically and geographically—with the equally ardent defenders of Slavery, both of which were addressed in the Constitution.

Now, as then, extremists (e.g., Rush Limbaugh’s “ditto heads” and the NRA’s gullible lemmings) are not-so-subtly suggesting violence against those who disagree with them.

Now, as then (in its Dred Scott decision), our Supreme Court has perpetuated continuing confusion as to what “the law is” and/or should be.

Hopefully, the litigation instigated by Colorado’s County Sheriffs will eventually resolve much of that uncertainty.  Meanwhile, the plain text of the Second Amendment offers “food for thought”.  Thus:

If the Second Amendment’s drafters had actually anticipated both the proliferation and lethality of modern personal weaponry, would they have used exactly the same language?

Because the premise that a “well regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State” necessarily implies the conclusion that “government” (whether State or federal) has some role to play in “regulating” the “right of the people to keep and bear Arms”, what is that role and when does its scope “infringe” on the peoples’ legitimate “right”?

Is there any rational basis for fearing that our “government” seeks to confiscate anyone’s “Arms” – except those of felons, the mentally deranged, or spouse abusers?

Would it ever by practically possible for any “government” to even attempt to confiscate 300,000,000 personal weapons – even if it encountered no resistance?

If a fully-armed population were deemed a “Militia”, how “well” could it be “regulated” without “impinging” on someone’s illegitimately self-proclaimed “right”?

Search More Jobs

734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Subscribe to print edition
Sign in to your account

© 2014 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy