Burnett shows he is not fit to represent Montanans - Sara Williams writes a letter to the editor

Sara Williams' letter to the editor is reproduced below, with my commentary interspersed in bold.

------------

As a voter, I read Tom Burnett’s website. His reasoning requires response. 

Burnett blames hungry, disabled, ill, old and young people for the costs of government. Here is a link to Burnett's website, which has no mention of the charges our interlocutor brings against him. There is much more on Burnett's blog, however. I spent a bit of time looking through it and found nothing about him blaming "...hungry, disabled, ill, old and young people for the costs of government." If Burnett did say such a thing, I find myself in agreement, because it is an objective fact the largest part of government expenditures on are these very people. But, it is quite another thing to assert that any such observation is prejudicial against the hungry, disabled, etc., as characterized by the use of the word "blamed." It doesn't necessarily follow that he was blaming anyone. Many government programs channel tax dollars to corporations. 

The Dept. of Agriculture’s food stamp program benefits corporate farms. In a stream-of-consciousness style, she tosses out a series of disconnected thoughts without context or explanation. Does she favor this corporate welfare? Is she mentioning it to show that this flow of dollars is benefiting corporations, so Burnett should be happy about it? Or is she bemoaning the fact that corporations are getting fat off the taxpayer dime at the expense of the needy? Well, we just don't know. Health care programs decrease the number of days employees miss from work. All levels of workers in medical fields pay income tax because they have income. She goes on with her arbitrary string of unrelated sentences. Of course health care programs decrease missed work. That's what health care does. Did Burnett suggest otherwise? Or is Ms. Williams simply attempting to justify government intervention into healthcare? Again, we just don't know. She then follows with another non sequitur, stating an obvious point. Yes, indeed, people with jobs pay taxes. 

Ok, let's try to put 2 and 2 together. It seems she is suggesting that programs like government healthcare are good because they create taxpayers. This is a superficial and misleading statement. People who work in government would otherwise work in the private sector absent the availability of a government job. The government job is funded with taxpayer money, so in actual fact, the taxpayer is paying for the government employee's job and his taxes. Money that comes from the taxpayers ends up in government coffers, of which a percentage is returned to government via the government worker's tax. This in and of itself hardly sounds like a benefit to the taxpayer.   

Education prepares children to enter the work force in order to become tax payers. It does? The purpose of schools is to create taxpayers? This might come as surprise to parents and others who thought that education is designed to impart knowledge so that the student might be able to live a successful and productive life. Who knew that schools were actually cranking out worker bees for the state? Schools and their administration provide work for building, transportation, kitchen, janitorial, clerical and support staff in addition to teachers and management, all who then pay income tax because they have income. All of this is true, but none of it is has anything to do with beneficent government. Each of these things would still occur if education was an entirely private enterprise. The Social Security system is pre-paid by employees during their working lives. This is the major first howler of Ms. Williams' letter. The Social Security system is a tax levied against today's workers to fund the retirement of yesterday's workers. SS is simply shifting the cost of post-work life to present day workers. "Pre-paid" suggests that a worker's SS taxes are accumulating on their behalf. This is nonsense, of course. There is no savings/retirement account set up for individual workers. There is no wealth accumulating on behalf of them. There is no interest gained or appreciation of any kind. SS is a tax, with a promise of a future benefit. 

Upon receipt into the SS trust fund, SS funds are immediately transferred to the treasury, which issues special non marketable bonds to the SS trust fund. These are IOUs which the treasury must pay back. Therefore, the SS system has no cash assets at all, simply a handful of paper promises. 

To paraphrase Lincoln, it’s the duty of government to provide for the people what they cannot individually provide for themselves. Sourced here: "'Fragment on Government' in 1854: 'The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do for themselves in their separate capacities.'" This is not the same as Ms. Williams represents it. Governments are formed to accomplish tasks that the people delegate to it. In our case, the Constitution enumerates those powers of government, in order that it accomplish what the people themselves cannot do as individuals. Nowhere does the Constitution give power to government to provide things to people who cannot provide for themselves. To suggest otherwise it to twist Lincoln's words and the Constitution to suit pop culture, left-wing utopian fantasies. Representatives must show they value people above corporations by sustaining the circularity of supporting those who do, or will, or have worked. Whoa. I thought it was good that corporations were receiving a flow of taxpayer money. When did she change her mind? But more to the point. Where is it written in our founding documents that representatives are charged with any such duty as this? Indeed, why is this a binary equation (people vs. corporations)?  In word and deed Burnett shows he is not fit to represent us. Still waiting for her to make her argument about this supposed unfitness. Haven't seen one yet. Vote for Franke Wilmer to represent 100 percent of HD 63. The whole letter is about Burnett, except for the last sentence. Ms. Williams doesn't bother to tell us why we should vote for Wilmer. I guess she imagines that Wilmer will support funneling taxpayer dollars though corporations to help the hungry and disabled. Or maybe Wilmer will bolster SS. Oh, wait. that issue has nothing to do with the state office Burnett and Wilmer are seeking. 

I don't know if I managed to cut through the confusion evident in this letter, but at least we know that for some, selecting a candidate doesn't appear to be a rational decision.