Jack Kligerman, local letter writer, and Steve Daines

Mr. Kligerman writes to the Bozeman Chronicle, followed by my analysis:

"Polonius meets Hamlet and asks him, 'What do you read, my Lord?' Hamlet answers, 'Words, words, words.' When pressed for their meaning, Hamlet continues, 'Slanders, sir.'

"Now the very many large signs that support Steve Daines — which bear the slogan, 'More Jobs; Less Government' — may not be slanderous, yet what they imply along with words of the Super Pacs directed against Obama, Tester and, soon, I am sure, Kim Gillan, come as close to slander as possible. But surely Daines’s words are empty, since there is no necessary correlation between smaller government at every level and more jobs. In fact, states that have the highest unemployment rates have reduced their number of government employees (e.g. teachers, police, fire personnel). Hence, in spite of a steady growth in private sector jobs over the past three years, unemployment remains high.

"As for less government, what would Daines sacrifice? Highways? Air controllers? The military? The Center for Disease Control? National parks? Services for the poor, elderly, women and children? Etc. Etc. When one looks closely, the slogan, 'More Jobs; Less Government' means nothing."

Jack Kligerman

Bozeman
------------

Slander: a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report.

Mr. Kligerman, with no hint that he gets his own irony, slanders candidate Steve Daines with vague suggestions of impropriety, apparently unhindered by his failure to provide a single bit of evidence backing up his claim. But this is typical behavior for the Left.

One might justifiably wonder how a statement like "more jobs, less government" can in any way be slanderous, and against whom. Did Mr. Daines slander Obama, Tester, or Kim Gillian in some fashion, or was it the unnamed super pacs who did so? Or was Mr. Kligerman prognosticating that Mr. Daines is soon to engage in slander? Really, what is Mr. Kligerman actually trying to say?

He writes, "Daines’s words are empty, since there is no necessary correlation between smaller government at every level and more jobs." Note the two added qualifiers, "necessary" and "at every level." Mr. Daines has made no claim that there is a "necessary" correlation that less government means more jobs "at every level." But again, this is typical behavior from the Left, introducing words into simple statements in order to twist the meaning or context of the statement.

Indeed, the statement "More jobs, less government" isn't actually requiring that the two phrases are correlated. Mr. Daines obviously supports two positions. He wants more jobs, and he wants less government. Linking them is not necessary, especially considering we are talking about a campaign sign. A slogan on a campaign sign is not the same thing as communicating nuanced, in depth policy theses. Nevertheless, I suspect that this single phrase is as much research as Mr. Kligerman has done regarding Mr. Daines's campaign positions.

Mr. Kligerman continues: "In fact, states that have the highest unemployment rates have reduced their number of government employees (e.g. teachers, police, fire personnel)." Unlike Mr. Kligerman, I shall cite my references. According to government unemployment statistics, the ten highest states for unemployment are nearly all governed by Democrats, and are characterized by big government, deficit spending, and financial mismanagement. Clearly there are other factors at work besides Mr. Kligerman's pedantic assertion, which suggests that Mr. Kligerman is engaging in lazy thinking, incomplete research, or he's just repeating talking points.

He continues: "Hence, in spite of a steady growth in private sector jobs over the past three years, unemployment remains high." Hmm. It appears that Mr. Kligerman is suggesting that persisting high unemployment is because government hasn't hired/retained enough people. You know, it's not hard to investigate these facts. First, private sector employment figures from the government's own website:



You'll note that private sector employment has increased by only 160,000 jobs from January 2009 to now. So the first thing we need to note is that there has been little growth, steady or otherwise, in the private sector, let alone the 2.6 million jobs trumpeted by Obama apologists.

Here's public sector employment since 1984:



As you can see, there was a general downward trend in federal employment during the Bush II years, which was violently reversed starting in 2008. While 2011 figures are not available, there is no reason to expect that the expansion of government has abated. Suffice to say, the numbers are not in favor of Mr. Kligerman.

Moving on. Mr. Kligerman superciliously writes, "As for less government, what would Daines sacrifice? Highways? Air controllers? The military? The Center for Disease Control? National parks? Services for the poor, elderly, women and children? " You will note another typical tactic of the Left, that is, equating cuts in government with a narrowly selected list of government activities that the average person would be adverse to cutting. Might one justifiably ask, are there are no other things in $3.83 trillion of federal spending that can be cut?

I have come to the conclusion that the Left is simply interested in promulgating talking points, assuming that the emotional content of them is sufficient to sway opinions. Whether or not they are true is less important than if they work. As such, it appears that leftists Like Mr. Kligerman are deliberately misrepresenting the truth in order to further an agenda. This is not surprising, but it is nonetheless distressing and needs to be continually pointed out.