Letter to the editor: Congress must address climate change, for our children Angie Winter

Found here. Our comments in bold

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

The letter writer is a supporter of the Citizens' Climate Lobby. This noble-sounding organization is a leftist advocacy group pushing for more taxes. They want to convince you into consenting to taxing yourselves by dangling a carrot called a dividend. This dividend would supposedly mitigate the impact of the fee. They claim: "A national carbon price, with full revenue return and border adjustments, will do four things: internalize the social cost of carbon-based fuels, rapidly achieve large emission reductions, stimulate the economy & recruit global participation. And it will do so for FREE." Yes, they really believe it is free.

Here's a chart from their website:

Notice in step one they want a carbon "fee" [tax] which would be applied "at the point where they [greenhouse gases] first enter the economy." The point at which carbon enters the economy is not the point where carbon enters the ecosystem. The only point where carbon enters the economy is when oil, gas and coal producing companies sell their products. Therefore, the intent of the Citizens' Climate Lobby is to tax oil, coal, and gas companies with an escalating tax, obviously intended to become confiscatory at some point: "The fee would start out low — $15 per ton — and gradually increase $10 each year." 

Let's try to get an idea what this tax would mean to the oil industry. The government says that burning a gallon of gasoline creates about 20 pounds of CO2, and in the U.S. we used 134,506,764,000 gallons in 2013. That generates 690,135,280,000 pounds of CO2, or 345,067,640 tons. Just from gasoline. So the amount of the tax, just for the first year level, is $5.2 billion. 

The energy business intends to operate a profit, so this additional cost of doing business will be incorporated into the price of energy. This tax will be passed down in the cost of their product, which all downstream businesses will pay, and they will do the same with the price of their products. This will trickle down through the economy until it gets to the end user. You. 

You and I will pay this tax. All of it.

According to the International Business Times, U.S. oil company profits were $33.4 billion, only a part of which is gasoline, of course. "Refineries in the United States produced an average of about 12 gallons of diesel fuel and 19 gallons of gasoline from one barrel (42 gallons) of crude oil in 2013." So this means that gasoline is about 45% of a typical barrel of oil. So roughly, $15.3 billion of that profit is from gasoline.

Now, let's do the numbers. We bring in the $5.2 billion tax and add it atop $15.3 billion in revenue. This tax, at least for the first year only, will add 1/3 to the price of a gallon of gas, minimum. My 2008 Toyota RAV4 uses about 30 gallons of gas per month, or 360 per year. With the carbon tax added in, this vehicle will cost an additional $400 to drive, and again, this is just for the first year. 

Then add a second vehicle, as well as the same tax applied to your home's natural gas, each business's heating bill, necessary wage increases, the cost of manufacturing and transporting goods, and you might as well add 50% to the cost of living. Just for the first year.

Then, tax will increase by $10 per ton each year. At the end of year three, the tax will have tripled. 

Citizens' Climate Lobby tells us that carbon tax revenue would be rebated to the consumer. This is step two, above. As one reads further, we discover each household would receive a dividend from a government "trust fund," which contains the accumulated revenue of the carbon tax. Disbursements from this fund would supposedly cover the increased cost of energy resulting from the tax. 

Step three appears to be price and competition controls.

This continues for the few years until the cost of the tax and the rebate amount are absolutely huge. And yet no one in this circle of death seems to have any incentive to lower carbon emissions. The consumer getting reimbursed, and the producer is charging what he needs to.

In effect, what we now have is a perpetual motion machine. The government taxes energy, energy gets more expensive, the tax money is given to the consumer to pay to the energy company for covering the extra expense, the energy company gets a tax increase the next year of an additional 67%, (existing tax of $15 per ton plus another $10 per ton) which they also pass on in their prices. Even more tax money gets paid out of the trust fund to the consumer.

Hmm.

Now, imagine this plan being implemented. Your income no longer covers the cost of your expenses, because you are hanging on for dear life waiting for the arrival of the rebate check at the end of the year. Surprise, the check is less than you thought. But the next tax increase has already kicked in, and your income hasn't increased that much. Now you're in an even bigger hole than before, again waiting for the next rebate check. 

By year five, you can't buy gas any more, your gas powered vehicle is obsolete and valueless, you can't afford to buy an electric vehicle, which would make no sense anyway since electricity is largely produced by carbon fuels. You can't afford to heat your house or even buy groceries, because everything has tripled in price. The rebate didn't calculate its overall effect on the economy because the government never gets stuff like this correct.

Businesses don't get a rebate, even though energy costs have been passed on to them as well. Some businesses might try to pass on the expense in the price of their products, but this makes them hugely more expensive and people just won't be buying them because their disposable income is being used just to stay afloat. Each year gets worse until the economy shuts down.

This is what Citizens' climate lobby calls a free market solution.

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

Guest column: Inflation Reduction Act: A win-win for your pocketbook and our climate - By Becky Edwards, Guest columnist

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The glib talking points flow effortlessly from the writer's word processor, to the point of ridiculousness. 

It's one thing to favor a clean environment. It's another thing entirely to spout bumper sticker slogans and leftist agitprop in the name of a clean environment. And she is definitely a leftist. Since she is a leftist, we do not accept anything she writes on face value. Leftists never tell the whole truth, they always hide behind fine-sounding phrases, superficial analyses, and obfuscating rhetoric. 

And by the way, to our knowledge, the author is not an economist, ecologist, or credentialed in any field upon which she comments. We can discern no qualifications that would suggest we should accept her ideas.

Let's see what we can pull out of this article.

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

Letter to the editor: Inflation can't be blamed on Biden, Democrats Jack Kligerman

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Here is a leftist attempting to explain economics. It should be no surprise that he fails. 

Of particular note is the letter writer's total inability to mention government in any way, except when it comes to Trump.

And by the way, only government can cause inflation. Period.

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

Is the Human Species on a Fast Track Toward Extinction? - By Bernard Starr

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author is advocating for complete central control of the entire world, in the name of saving the planet. Aside from the problematic idea of giving complete and total control to an intellectual ruling class, the author never even bothers to explain why humankind should not become extinct. What is bad about the planet dying? Why is it a problem that species die off? 

And why should we survive as a species?

The author is operating according to some unstated moral premise. Extinction may be bad, but it is not self-evidently so. The author would need to explain the moral premise upon which he bases his presentation. 

In actual fact, the author doesn't really believe that we will become extinct. Nope, that is a convenient excuse. What he really wants is a dismantling of capitalism. He wants the installation of a world administration. He is a marxist at heart, and marxists love the utopian ideas of a perfect society governed by wise elders, or whatever these despots would call themselves.

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

Climate Change Myths - Louder with Crowder

Found here. No commentary necessary.

OBAMA IN GLASGOW

• On Monday, Barack Obama showed up in Glasgow to lecture the peons on CLIMATE CHANGE! Obama spent a large portion of his speech shitting on Donald Trump and Republicans and tooting his own horn.
  • The biggest reason greenhouse emissions have steadily decreased is because of natural gas, not more Obama era regulation. SOURCE: UNIPCC
  • The Paris accords don't do anything. China, the world's largest polluter, has increased carbon output even though they were in the Paris agreement. SOURCE: NYPost
  • In 2019, after leaving the Paris agreement, the US reduced emissions by nearly 3%, the most of ANY major country. SOURCE: IEA
  • Weather-related deaths have decreased over time. SOURCE: WSJ

A market-based method to deal with warming - letter by Dr. Kenneth Pierce

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
---------------------------------

Dr. Pierce apparently does not understand the concept of free markets, because "putting a fee" on carbon content has nothing to do with the free market. A "fee" (that is, a tax) is a government intervention into the free market, not an activity of the free market. And this particular tax is not for the purpose of generating revenue for the operation of government, it is a manipulation designed to alter peoples' behavior to certain desired outcomes. This is known as social engineering, which is about as far from the free market as one can get.

Citizens' Climate Lobby is an advocacy organization attempting to persuade people to consent to taxing themselves by dangling a carrot called a dividend. This dividend is intended to be given to people to mitigate the impact of the fee. They claim: "A national carbon price, with full revenue return and border adjustments, will do four things: internalize the social cost of carbon-based fuels, rapidly achieve large emission reductions, stimulate the economy & recruit global participation. And it will do so for FREE." Yes, they really believe it is free.

Here's a chart from their website:

Notice they want an escalating tax, obviously intended to become confiscatory at some point, which will be transferred to you and me. This tax will be applied "at the point where they [greenhouse gases] first enter the economy," but each household will receive a dividend from a "trust fund," which supposedly covers the increased cost of goods and services resulting from the tax. 

The point at which carbon enters the economy is not the point where carbon enters the ecosystem. Therefore, it seems that their intent is to tax oil, coal, and gas companies. for that is the only substantial place where carbon enters the economy.  "The fee would start out low — $15 per ton — and gradually increase $10 each year." 

Why do we have to choose between the environment and the economy?

This was posted by a FB friend. I wanted to analyze it (or over-analyze it), because it has so many logical fallacies and Leftist tropes in it.

First, there's that ubiquitous use of the word "we," which is never you and me, it's always government. To be sure, it will require heavy-handed government intervention into the private sector, a fundamental rework of every facet of peoples' lives, and a substantial reduction in the standard of living of everyone, in order to achieve environmental nirvana. By "substantial," we mean grass huts and berries.

Second, it asks a false binary question: "Why do we have to choose between the environment and the economy?" The question actually is, how much pollution is acceptable as we live our lives? Because that's what we have to do, no matter how clean we try make things. Pollution will never be zero, so the real issue is how much is acceptable. Therefore, everyone is in favor of some pollution.

There is a growing clamor in the environmentalist movement to reduce fossil fuel usage to zero by 2050. In order to achieve this, oppressive measures will need to be undertaken, and those measures are not restricted to lifestyles.

Clearly the world's population in 2050, projected to be 9.6 billion, cannot exist without fossil fuels. A substantial reduction of the world's population must be achieved. Thus, many organizations are advocating universal birth control, but even that will not be enough.

At least there are some environmentalists who are being honest about their goals, a 90% reduction in humanity from present levels. Can you imagine, a population of 700 million? There are actually people out there who want to eliminate billions of people for the sake of the environment, and want to empower governments to achieve such a goal!

And yet, 700 million people still will pollute, so even for these extremists, some amount of pollution is still acceptable. Enter VHEMT, which is calling for our extinction. The only zero-pollution people in the debate, a perspective the even the most ardent environmentalist would recoil from, these are the true believers, willing to die for their god. At least they are all-in. You know, I think they should take the first step themselves to demonstrate their commitment to their ideals.

So the second question in the picture is, "Why not make the environment the economy?" In light of the above discussion, we can see this question is nonsensical. Setting aside the fact that "clean energy" is economically unfeasible, we can see from the above discussion that it isn't even the real solution environmentalists are seeking.

However, you can be sure that if the world's government totally bought in to the idea of windfarms and solar energy and then took over the entirety of the population's choices about how they will lead their lives, they would soon see they could not stop there. VHEMT's ideas might start looking good, and then who can stop them?

That is the problem with these government lovers, they invest totally in government's ability to do good, which eventually leads to the possibility of going the whole way. But you can be sure that someone will stop and say, "hey, why should we wipe out everybody? We are rich and we control everything. What a shame to waste all that wealth and have no one to enjoy it." Thus, utopia is achieved, and it only cost a few billion lives.

It is clear that the typical environmentalist has not thought through the ramifications of their ideology. I suspect many of them have good intentions, although there is no reason to dismiss the idea that the real agenda at work is the destruction of capitalism, ala Naomi Klein.

These people really don't like humans. They're anti-life. The love abortion, euthanasia, and eugenics, though they will never admit it. For many of them, the agenda is far reaching and fundamental. They don't like freedom, choice, prosperity, or happiness. Theirs is a utopian vision, where everyone but them is out.

Welcome to the new order, paradise on earth.

Bozeman has a growth problem; time to slow down - Eileen Hosking

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
----------------------

Thank you, Jennifer Paul (letter, Aug. 13), (That letter reproduced below.) for your cogent and even-tempered letter concerning the failure of Bozeman’s Chamber of Commerce to consider this community’s best interests, while resurrecting grand and inappropriate plans from other times and places.

I have been trying to compose a letter for months, directed to the City Commission, on the same topic — but I inevitably get lost in my anger. (A common Leftist malady, usually as a result of someone dissenting from their beliefs.) 

While our politicians, merchants and developers seem to be singing from the same songbook, our elected representatives do not seem to be in touch in the least with the rest of the population of this lovely, small city. (It's interesting that this extremely Left city commission is characterized as being too friendly to business, especially considering their implementing impact fees, sign codes, and requiring landscaped parking lots. And it seems a lot of Leftists have forgotten the $500,000 extorted from Wal-Mart for its supposed negative impact on mom-and-pop businesses. There are many other things the commission has done that are hostile to development and business, so the complaint that the City is in bed with business rings hollow.)

Clearly with the unemployment rate as low as it is, Bozeman does not have an employment problem. We have a growth problem, one that is being driven by city government and the chamber. (Like all good little leftists, the author is perfectly at ease to toss around these "problems" for government to solve. We don't have THIS problem, we have THAT problem, and we must have government "fix" yet another problem it has by and large caused by its prior economic interventions.) 

Growth — at least at the rate we are seeing — is not inevitable. In fact, public money is being spent to promote it. Yes, even our leftist government recognizes that prosperity is desirable.)

Associated with the myth of inevitable growth is the myth of tax relief through an expanding tax base. How many times already have current property owners been asked to pay for new schools, for instance? And soon for growing law enforcement and court needs. (It truly is ironic that the mismanagement of tax resources by the City commissioners is being laid at the feet of their victims. Does Ms. Hosking realize that taxes are levied by government, not factories? Indeed, factories pay taxes, but Ms. Hosking wants to prevent development and stop business from opening in Bozeman, and then is surprised that property taxes go up. 

I wonder, is she being racist? Because there's an influx of outsiders (read: people of color), who are ruining her little paradise and creating a need for additional law enforcement. And, we all know who it is who commits all these crimes, don't we, Ms. Hosking?

Ms. Hosking sounds like a debutante facing her first exposure to "them," and is horrified at the prospect of rubbing elbows. So she wants to retreat into her sanctuary, shut the door behind her, and keep out those who aspire to move into her neighborhood.)

There are beautiful, small communities that work successfully to maintain their health. (That is, they're squashed under the thumb of dictatorial central planners.)

Why don’t we try that tack? (Because we are already doing it, Ms. Hosking.) Make it difficult to erect buildings downtown that block the mountain views and sunshine, or to lay more asphalt, or build more box stores, chain restaurants or cramped, sprawling developments that could be anywhere in the country? (In other words, keep doing exactly what we are doing. Let's keep pushing development outside the doughnut zone and thus be denied the benefits of their success while simultaneously contributing to sprawl. Let's keep people in low-paying dead end jobs, and force them to live in surrounding, cheaper communities because they can't afford to live here in Ms. Hosking's virtual gated community. Let's kill the golden goose so that Ms. Hosking can gaze at the mountains while others collect their unemployment. 

Because indeed, growth is not inevitable. It can be eliminated by people like Ms. Hosking, whose attitude seems to be that she's here already, so no one else should have access to the lifestyle she enjoys.)

As Ms. Paul said, let’s take care of our community. Let’s not sell it down the road.

Eileen Hosking

Bozeman

----------------
Jennifer Paul's letter:
------------------

The Bozeman Chamber of Commerce announced plans that would bring large manufacturing plants and corporate businesses to Bozeman, Mont. Their aim? "To make Bozeman the commercial hub of Montana." While this idea may seem to be great for Bozeman's job and revenue growth, it is in reality, a fundamentally flawed plan. The two major oversights? First, Bozeman lacks the infrastructure to sustain a huge population boom. If such plans are given the go ahead, Bozeman's current residents will be forced to haul the financial responsibility in the form of higher taxes. The chamber also announced that the Environmental Protection Agency recently gave Bozeman an “F” grade due to its lack of infrastructure to properly dispose of raw sewage, polluted water runoff and toxic gasses emitted from the local landfill. This has resulted in a hefty fine placed on the city and unfortunately will result in higher taxes next year for both home and business owners alike.

Secondly, the other reason this "grandiose vision" of Bozeman is flawed is that it has not taken into account that people have and will continue to move to Bozeman because it is a beautiful place to live, raise a family and to get away from "big city attitude," crime, pollution and traffic. Furthermore, Bozeman thrives on tourism. It has marketed itself on the world stage as being a "pristine mountain paradise." What will people think about our picturesque high mountain town once every square inch of this valley is subdivided and given over to higher taxes and industry? The goal is to get the out-of-state visitors to keep coming to our town and spending money! It is not turn them away. Keep business small, keep it local. Lets take care of our community, both people and land alike.
---------------------

Climate change deniers foster no civil dialogue - letter by Wendy Weaver

Mr. Scott Warwood wrote a letter to the editor, and Ms. Wendy Weaver wrote a response. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My responses are in bold.

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

Mr. Warwood's letter is first:

Call me a denier. When I see sensational, above-the-fold headlines like “U.S. roasts to hottest year on record by landslide” in the Chronicle, I get hotter because it makes my blood boil. As an engineer who has worked for the same big “evil” corporation for the last 28 years, I help my customers save energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and construct alternative energy sources – all for that ugly ‘p’ word – profit.

The socialist left, who despise the”p” word, have taken up residence in the climate change debate. Their true aims are power and control – they always know what’s best for the unwashed masses.

Bozeman has a highly educated populace, and yet the Chronicle continues to foist this propaganda on us without questioning it in the slightest. A lie repeated enough times is soon accepted as the truth.

In doing a little research, I found this: Global temps have moderated over the last 15 years. The media has chosen to concentrate on the U.S., which accounts for 1.6 percent of the earth’s surface!

Apparently the National Climatic Data Center has two sets of data – the correct set, and an inflated set for use by the gullible media and populace (www.wattsupwiththat.com).

If the same measurement stations used in 1930 were used for 2012, 2012 would not crack the top 10 for record maximum. Many more stations have been added, skewing the data (www.climatedepot.com).

Polar bear populations are up by more than 13 percent (www.polarbearscience.com).

When Al Gore stops lining his own pockets with our money, starts flying commercial, drives a hybrid car, and moves to a small, energy efficient home, I might start to listen, but until then, question everything when it comes to this topic.

Scott Warwood
------------

Now for Ms. Weaver:

In response to Scott Warwood, the climate change denier:

I too am an engineer but come from a different school of thinking — one that values peer reviewed science over special interest drivel promoted by front groups with an obvious agenda. (Notice the either/or scenario: Either you agree with Ms. Weaver, or you believe special interest drivel. There apparently is no legitimate opposition opinion. This is an easy and convenient rebuttal method, isn't it? All you have to do is blow off your opposition with a couple of abusive assertions and your job is done.)

Scott, everything you find on the Internet is not true.(Um, what? Did she mean "not everything you find on the internet is true?" Anyway, besides the obviousness of this [corrected] assertion, simply tossing out a generic assessment does nothing at all to address the specific points Mr. Warwood brought forth. What SPECIFICALLY is wrong about Mr. Warwood's sources? I'll wager Ms. Weaver never even visited the referenced sites.)

As an engineer I would assume you’re familiar with the scientific process — the process that allows us to develop cancer drugs, launch the Mars Explorer to a distant planet, and tells us where to drill for natural gas. (Now Ms. Weaver gets condescending. "Mr. stupid man, you do know how science works, don't you?" Look at all the wonderful things science has been able to do! Look, we can send probes to Mars! And because we can send probes to Mars, this means that climate change is correct. 

Because science does other amazing things, climate change is unassailable. Really.)

The evolving understanding coming from this same scientific process is overwhelmingly in support of the view that climate change is real, that the changes we see today are primarily human caused, and that its impacts will be detrimental to our future vitality. (This all might be true, but what exactly does it have to do with the points raised by Mr. Warwood? Is there any point at which Ms. Weaver will address and refute the points offered?)

As a self-proclaimed denier, you fuel the divisive and polarized politics that have made proactive community action on climate change so difficult. (See, Mr. Warwood? You're part of the problem. Dissent is not patriotic. Skepticism is not scientific. Challenging the status quo is divisive. Yup, Ms. Weaver has a real scientific perspective here, doesn't she? Can you feel the science oozing from her every pore? Oh, and by the way. Action on climate change is not a scientific activity, it's a political one.) 

Your statements do nothing to help us build a strong and vibrant regional economy or encourage civil dialogue. (It's even worse for you, Mr. Warwood. You are damaging the economy! Does anyone note the irony of Ms. Weaver's statement. She has lambasted and impugned Mr. Warwood in a most venomous and puerile way, and suddenly now she values civility?)

While no one person or group has all the answers, in civic dialogue there is a hope that all parties coming to the table hold on to some small shred of reality. (Whoa, stop the presses. Did she really just say that no one has all the answers? Hasn't she spent her entire letter on a denunciation of deniers like Mr. Warwood? If the deniers cannot be admitted to the table, then could Ms. Weaver identify what parties would be allowed to dissent from the "consensus" and offer their small "shred of reality," since she has already excluded everyone who is not already marching lockstep with the "Consensus"?) 

As for the socialists who can’t stand profit, which of these companies — GE, Shell, Wal-Mart, or BP — would you call the biggest socialist climate kook? (My head is now beginning to spin. These companies are hated by the Left. BP dumped millions of gallons of crude into the Gulf of Mexico a few years back. Walmart treats its employees like chattel. Shell's products pump millions of tons of carbon into the air every year. GE makes war machines that kill people all over the globe. So now they're friends of the environment because the donate a portion of their obscene profits to environmental causes and print their brochures with green ink and pictures of trees? How naive can someone be? 

Further, Mr. Warwood did not make any claim about corporations being socialist. He said the profit-hating socialist Left has "taken up residence in the climate change debate." Rather than debate this point, Ms. Weaver drags corporations into the mix and refutes that instead. This is known as a Red Herring.)  

And when did the U.S. military — which discusses climate change as a major force for global geopolitical destabilization in the 21st century — turn communist on us? I must have missed that headline... (Wow. The disconnect from reality is staggering. Mr. Warwood made no mention of the military. And when, exactly, did the military become a for-profit corporation? I didn't see the announcement. It shouldn't surprise anyone, even Ms. Weaver, that the military, as a government entity, implements government environmental policy.)

Years from now when I am sitting around the table with my grandchildren, I will know that I worked my butt off to do everything in my power to prevent and slow climate change. (This is so over the top. Everything in her power? I'm willing to be she owns a pollutant-spewing automobile, that she lives in a house or apartment constructed of wood and heated with fossil fuels. She buys food, which was delivered to the store in fossil burning vehicles, produce grown by extracting natural resources from the soil, and clothing made in a factory somewhere. 

Ms. Weaver is a hypocrite. She lives a lifestyle that could pay for hundreds of people who live on pennies a day in the third world. If she really wanted to do everything in her power to prevent and slow climate change, she would remove her carbon footprint completely. But of course, she isn't willing to do that for the sake of the planet, which means that some level of pollution is completely acceptable to her. The only difference between her and someone like Mr. Warwood is where that line is drawn.) 

What will your legacy be? (Notice the smug, self-satisfied narcissism. She is so superior to Mr. Warwood, someone she knows nothing about, that she is happy to pass judgement on him. This imperious, pompous arrogance is distasteful  especially in the context of her scattershot diatribe.)

Wendy Weaver

Social Security should not be on the chopping block - Letter by Elizabeth Marum - comments

This is a letter to the editor recently published by the Bozeman Chronicle. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments interspersed in bold. I have previously discussed SS here and here.

------------------
Social Security has successfully lifted seniors out of destitute poverty for 77 years (This success of a program still leaves seniors having to choose between food and medicine {"In 2001, 8.4% of households with seniors were food insecure"}. Depending on the day and the political point being made, either seniors are being lifted out of poverty by this successful program, or they're starving to death because we are so stingy and greedy. Which is it?), 

and has allowed the most vulnerable — seniors, survivors and disabled persons — the dignity to manage a minimal lifestyle (Minimal lifestyle? Is that the goal of the left wing for our seniors? Is that what they think is fair and equitable? This is what they think is dignity, to be barely scraping by, depending on a small government check just to exist? Really?). 

Social Security is not part of the federal budget, and never has been. (This is a strange assertion. Why would the author be so concerned with whether or not SS is part of the federal budget? Is it because of the general {accurate} perception that government is corrupt and wasteful? Ms. Marum is correct, though. SS is indeed "off budget" in the sense that its income and payouts are not part of the general fund ledger. But that is hardly a plus, as we shall see.)  

It’s securely (Yes, securely. Not insecure at all...) 

placed in a trust fund, invested in 30 year treasury bonds, where it grows by 15 percent a year (The "assets" of the Trust Fund are indeed "invested in treasury bonds." However, this is really only an obfuscation. The Trust Fund dollars are removed from the Trust Fund when received and added to the General Fund where they are spent. The treasury issues bonds to the Trust Fund in the place of the cash, which, of course, are debt instruments. The "assets" of the Trust Fund, therefore, are IOUs. No cash, just bonds. The Trust fund is therefore a liability, not an asset. We will need trillions of dollars to pay back the bonds, which will come from us, the taxpayers. 

But what about that 15% growth she cites? A quick google search yielded no results. This must then be considered a fiction. Especially since according to the treasury, the actual 30 year bond yield is 2.94%. That yield, which of course itself is sourced from taxpayer money, is deposited into the Trust Fund, which then is immediately used to purchase more treasury bonds, the proceeds of which are deposited into the treasury to be spent. Are you catching on to this little shell game?). 

Treasury bonds are considered the safest investment in the world, and that’s why all kinds of investors buy them, including foreign governments (Whew, What a breathtaking misrepresentation. These treasury bonds are not marketable, by congressional decree. They are special treasury bonds that can only be bought by the Trust Fund. No investor or foreign government owns one. And as we have seen, they are not investments at all, for the "yield" is a shell game.). 

In addition, it’s an earned benefit, a public insurance plan (Well, no. It is certainly not an earned benefit or an insurance plan. Flemming Vs. Nestor established just the opposite, that there is no legal right to benefits. Indeed, the ruling specifically noted that congress can increase, decrease, or eliminate benefits as they see fit under Section 1104 of the 1935 SS Act.). 

Beneficiaries have paid into the system just like we’ve purchased car insurance, many of us for decades (Again, no. Beneficiaries have not paid into the system. This suggests a voluntary action. That money has been extracted by the government, without choice. And, Social Security definitely is not insurance, it is a tax with a promised future benefit for those who qualify. It does not follow insurance actuarial rules, it does not collect money or pay benefits according to sound financial insurance practices, and benefits are not tied to any known economic principle. There is no account with a stated dollar value for anyone, and those who receive benefits are not tapping into their own money, they are being funded with today's workers' taxes.) 

Current budget negotiations are more about ideology and less about how to trim the budget and solve the fiscal problems. It’s a cruelty test to see if we will tolerate it.

Why else would a $100M cut in cost of living adjustments be proposed when it will directly hurt 198,230 Montanans whose average benefit in 2011 was just $1,081 a month (Wait a second! Didn't Ms. Marum just write, "Social Security has successfully lifted seniors out of destitute poverty?" Now the average benefit is "just" $1,081 per month. So which is it, a glowing success or an inadequate benefit?)? 

Many seniors — women especially — make far less than that. The proposed cuts to the already bloated defense budget are $122M. 

It doesn’t just matter to recipients, either. Nationally, Social Security has a multiplying effect of 1.7 on each dollar as the modest monthly benefits are spent locally on housing, food, utilities and essentials (What? This is utter nonsense. Each dollar of SS paid out was first taken from the pocket of another person. Thus, that person does not get to spend this dollar for any multiplier effect, someone else does. There is only one multiplier effect. Once the person is denied it by forfeiting the dollar, another "inherits" the multiplier effect by him spending that dollar instead. This means the net benefit is, yes, zero. 

Further, I would contest that there even is a multiplier effect greater than the effect of the free market left to its own processes. But more to the point, the multiplier effect is simply another way of saying the effect "trickles down." Yes, once again the Left simultaneously approves of and despises something depending on political expediency.). 

For those not entirely dependent upon it (Why make this distinction? Is Ms. Marum making a tacit admission that SS does not, in fact, lift people out poverty?), 

it offers a quality of life and pays for a few extras growing local main street businesses ("A quality of life," not "a better quality of life," which is obtained by coercing people to part with their money so that retirees can receive benefits. Years ago, their money was taken from their own pockets in order to fund those who were on social security back at that time. Had we been able to be left to our own choices, we would be able to save, spend, or invest this money ourselves with much better results. Or lost it on the ponies or the stock market. But it is our own money after all, which we should be able to do with as we see fit. That is, until the government decided to lay claim on it "for our own good.").  

In 2011, Social Security paid $2.57 billion to Montanans. (And by extension, took $2.57 billion from others. )

Remember, it’s hard to drive income into rural areas where there are fewer opportunities for high-paying jobs and where our population is rapidly aging (More nonsense. There is no stated goal of SS to "drive income" into rural areas. There is no evidence that SS successfully does this. And finally, there is no demonstrable benefit for such a thing. But let's grant her the point for the moment. If indeed SS "drives" income into rural areas, Ms. Marum must now concede that SS is not a savings plan, it is a redistributive tax with an economic objective to allocate money according to geography as a social engineering mechanism. This has nothing at all to do with individual savings plans, insurance, or individual account accumulations. Ms. Marum has ceded her entire presentation up to this point; indeed, she must abandon it in favor of governmental micromanagement of the rural economy). Social Security works for Montana. Let’s keep it that way!

Elizabeth Marum

(Wow, this is truly an ignorant explanation of how SS functions. Not a single assertion made by the author has a factual basis. She so misunderstands the transactions taking place that one must consider the possibility she is deliberately misrepresenting the situation.)