Printed letters, October 7, 2012

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.

Gail Schultz’s letter – “Public has fallen asleep at the wheel of democracy” (October 7, 2012) – epitomizes the contagious drivel circulating among “true believers”.

President Obama’s speech to the United Nations decried all forms of religious bigotry and violent intolerance – explicitly citing that all-too-prevalent in the Moslem world.

Curiously, Schultz does not specify the “three tenets of Christian morality” that the DNC purportedly “ripped from the Bible”, much less the “secular doctrines that are in total opposition of those tenets” with which it replaced them.  Thus, the premises of Schultz’s hysteria remain as secret as Mitt Romney’s tax returns.

Personally, I would have left the word “god” out of the Democratic Party Platform – adhering to the separation of Church and State – but President Obama put it back in.

I would also return to our original constructively collectivist national motto – “E pluribus Unum” (From Many, One) – and consign its seductively superstitious replacement – “In God We Trust”—to the dustbin of anti-Communist history where it belongs.  And, I would restore civics to our Pledge of Allegiance by affirming “one Nation, under law”.

But, contrary to Schultz’s snide insinuations, President Obama didn’t do any of that – and his policies confirm his profound respect for both the Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount, but not for the intolerance of Leviticus.

Incredibly, Schultz seems surprised that our democracy is “of the people, by the people, and for the people” – and that President Obama realistically hopes that from the “Arab Spring” will emerge elected regimes responsive to the wishes of their people.

Obviously, Schultz is no longer shocked by lies about President Obama – because she is so inundated by them that she must spout falsehoods to relieve the cognitive dissonance spawned by contradicting reality.

Predictably, Schultz confuses public disinterest in her hysteria with “somnambulism”.

                Bill Hugenberg

Joseph Luff’s letter in last Tuesday’s Sentinel – “Taxpayers can’t sustain public jobs, entitlements” – parrots familiar misconceptions about both our economy and Social Security.

Because roughly 91% of our economy is “private sector” while 9% is “public sector”, Luff’s “fear that the public sector will sooner or later crush taxpayers” is obviously premature – given even President Obama’s restraints on public sector expansion.

Contrary to Luff’s mindless mantra (but as columnist Jim Spehar factually demonstrated),
the public sector does indeed create jobs—as proven in Mesa County.  Therefore, “once again, repeat after me”:  NOT “only the private sector creates jobs”.

Rather, demand for goods and services “creates jobs”.  While most of that demand is satisfied by the private sector, the remainder is filled by the public sector (including teachers, firemen, police, soldiers, etc.).

President Obama’s Eisenhower-esque efforts to “go out and create those jobs and lower the country’s unemployment rate” – as in the American Jobs Act of 2011 (which would have saved 300,000 public sector jobs, created 1+ million new infrastructure-related private sector jobs, and lowered the unemployment rate by at least 1%) and the Veterans Job Corps Act (which would have facilitated the employment of returning Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans) – were both obstructed by unpatriotic Republicans seeking to prevent him from earning electoral credit for a more robustly recovering economy.

Likewise contrary to Luff’s false refrain, Social Security is not a “Ponzi Scheme”—but rather an inter-generational insurance program guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the U.S.  Indeed, as the Simpson-Bowles Commission concluded, the actuarial integrity of Social Security can be extended indefinitely by gradually increasing the payroll tax rate, removing the earnings cap, raising the retirement age, and/or means-testing benefits.  (See Daily Sentinel, “Modest changes to fix Social Security carry huge political risks”, August 20, 2012).

                Bill Hugenberg

Mike Bambino must have missed the Sentinel’s reporting of the AP’s fact-checking of Wednesday’s presidential debate (“Factual missteps included health insurance, jobless”), which omitted several falsehoods chronicled in the AP’s on-line version (“Fact Check:  Presidential debate missteps”).

As reported by Nation of Change, Romney told 27 “myths” (i.e., falsehoods, lies, and/or unverifiable “facts”) in 38 minutes – thus, one lie every 90 seconds!

Curiously, the Sentinel (presumably deliberately) omitted the AP’s analysis of Romney’s campaign-touted tax plan.

Logically, the net effect of tax code changes is calculated by subtracting total revenue-increasing offsets from total revenue-decreasing tax cuts (i.e., arithmetic).

Romney’s published plan calls for 20% across-the-board cuts in tax rates – and thus a 20% reduction in federal income tax revenues ($5 trillion over ten years).

Romney would also extend the expiring Bush tax cuts for all brackets – costing another $1 trillion, and would increase defense spending by $2 trillion – a total of $8 trillion.

Romney claimed that his tax cuts would always be “revenue neutral”—because revenue reductions created by his plan would be filled by limiting as-yet-unspecified deductions for the “top 3%” (to be “negotiated” with Congress), thus admitting that there might be no tax cuts whatsoever – prompting President Obama to caustically retort that Romney’s “one big idea” was in fact a “never mind”.
As President Obama stated – and as the widely-regarded non-partisan Tax Policy Center concluded—there is simply not enough revenue available from those deductions to close a $5 trillion gap, so either deficits would explode or the middle 50% of taxpayers (97% minus the bottom 47% who pay none) would average $2300 in annual tax increases.

Romney dismissed that inconvenient fact by disingenuously referencing “other studies”—produced by conservative “think tanks”—which close Romney’s (and Ryan’s) revenue shortfalls by arbitrarily assuming that their tax cuts (if any) would stimulate sufficiently robust economic growth to generate the necessary additional tax revenues.  Magic!

That is the core “shell game” (and discredited premise) of “Voodoo Economics” and, as the AP noted, “Congress doesn’t use those kinds of projections when it estimates the effect of tax legislation”.

                Bill Hugenberg

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