Mountain Man Trails

Monday, November 26, 2012

Fights over public meeting opening prayers continue - analysis

(This is what I've been talking about in so many of my posts here, here, here, and here. Once government oversteps its constitutional boundaries, all sorts of abuses are possible. My comments interspersed in bold. This article reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes.)

By JESSICA GRESKO

Associated Press WASHINGTON — It happens every week at meetings in towns, counties and cities nationwide. A lawmaker or religious leader leads a prayer before officials begin the business of zoning changes, contract approvals and trash pickup (in other words, the practice of prayer in government has a history going back to the Founders. One must conclude that the Founders themselves were in violation of the constitution, or were ignorant of what it meant Thank goodness we have such a better understanding of the constitution than the Founders!).

But citizens are increasingly taking issue with these prayers, some of which have been in place for decades. At least five lawsuits around the country — in California, Florida, Missouri, New York, and Tennessee — are actively challenging premeeting prayers.

Lawyers on both sides say there is a new complaint almost weekly, though they don’t always end up in court. When they do, it seems even courts are struggling to draw the line over the acceptable ways to pray (Herein lies the problem. The courts' struggles are because they are involved! The government has absolutely no authority to speak at all regarding religion.). Some lawyers and lawmakers believe it’s only a matter of time before the Supreme Court will weigh in to resolve the differences. The court has previously declined to take on the issue (as well it should, except to strike down all previous lower court interventions into religious expression), but lawyers in a New York case plan to ask the justices in December to revisit it. And even if the court doesn’t take that particular case, it could accept a similar one in the future.

Lawmakers who defend the prayers cite the nation’s founders and say they’re following a long tradition of prayer before public meetings. They say residents don’t have to participate and having a prayer adds solemnity to meetings and serves as a reminder to do good work (to add to that, this is a free speech/freedom of assembly/religious freedom issue. "Congress shall make no law... is pretty clear, isn't it?).

“It’s a reassuring feeling,” said Lakeland, Fla., Mayor Gow Fields of his city’s prayers, which have led to an ongoing legal clash with an atheist group. The City Commission’s meeting agenda now begins with a disclaimer that any prayer offered before the meeting is the “voluntary offering of a private citizen” and not being endorsed by the commission (an unneccessary proviso. It should be enough to read the 1st amendment aloud and leave it at that.).

Citizens and groups made uncomfortable by the prayers (Discomfort is hardly a reason to make policies or laws. I have no interest at all in your comfort) say they’re fighting an inappropriate mix of religion and politics (inappropriate is a matter of taste. We should not be mixing comfort or appropriateness into how the law comes to bear).

“It makes me feel unwelcome,” said Tommy Coleman, the son of a church pianist and a self-described secular humanist who is challenging pre-meeting prayers in Tennessee’s Hamilton County.

Coleman, 28, and Brandon Jones, 25, are urging the county to adopt a moment of silence at its weekly meeting rather than beginning with a prayer. A number of groups are willing to help with complaints like those filed by Coleman and Jones.Annie Laurie Gaylor, the co-founder of the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, says complaints about the prayers are among the most frequent her organization gets.

Gaylor’s organization sends out letters when it is contacted by citizens, urging lawmakers to discontinue the prayers (free speech for thee but not for me...). Other groups including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State send out similar letters.

Ian Smith, a lawyer with Americans United for Separation of Church and State, says his organization has gotten more complaints in recent years. That could be because people are more comfortable standing up for themselves or more aware of their options, but Smith also said groups on the right have also promoted the adoption of prayers (Actually, religion haters make noise at a level much greater than their numbers, and the rest of us must kowtow to their feelings at the expense of religious liberty).

Brett Harvey, a lawyer at the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian group that often helps towns defend their practices, sees it the other way. He says liberal groups have made a coordinated attempt to bully local governments into abandoning prayers, resulting in more cases.

“It’s really kind of a campaign of fear and disinformation,” Harvey said.

Courts around the country don’t agree on what’s acceptable or haven’t considered the issue (which again, is the problem. The court has no business deciding what acceptable speech is, or acceptable religious practices are. Such an idea ought to be summarily rejected by any thinking individual). In 1983 the U.S. Supreme Court approved prayer before legislative meetings, saying prayers don’t violate the First Amendment’s so-called Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another (this clause is always given preeminence, while the "free exercise thereof" clause is the ugly step sister.). But the case didn’t set any boundaries on those prayers, and today courts disagree on what is permissible (Ugh. There is its again. Can you imagine? The courts disagree on what a person can say? This ought to be outrageous!).

For example, one court ruling from 2011 says that prayers before legislative meetings in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia should be nondenominational or non-sectarian. That means the prayer leader can use general words like “God” and “our creator” but isn’t supposed to use words like “Jesus” ‘’Christ” and “Allah” that are specific to a single religion (Ah yes. Here we have the censorship of speech in the name of "neutrality.").

The law is different in courts in Florida, Georgia and Alabama: In 2008 a federal court of appeals overseeing those states upheld the prayer practice of Georgia’s Cobb County, which had invited a rotating group of clergy members to give prayers before its meetings. The prayers were predominantly Christian and often included references to Jesus (Jesus, the most offensive name on the planet. No one gets offended by the name of Zeus or Odin).

Towns that get complaints, meanwhile, have responded differently. Some have made changes, some willingly and others with misgivings. Other towns have dug in to defend their traditions.

Citizens in Lancaster, Calif., for example, voted overwhelmingly in 2010 to continue their prayers despite the threat of a lawsuit. Mayor R. Rex Parris says the city of 158,000 has already likely spent about $500,000 defending the practice, and he expects to spend more before the case is over. He said the issue is worth it because it has brought the town together (That's one of the strategies. Make it expensive to defend free speech, and you gain a defacto win for religion haters).

Other towns have gone the opposite route, stopping prayer altogether when challenged. Henrico County, Va., stopped prayers recently after lawmakers reviewed recent court decisions and determined it would be too difficult to police the content of prayers (Can you imagine? Government policing the content of prayers? So rather than engage in one egregious practice, they implement another: Banning free speech!).

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Higher taxes on wealthy won’t trigger new crisis - Jack Kligerman - analysis

Our responses in bold.

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

The claim that raising taxes on the wealthy would throw us back into a recession because the “job creators” — the wealthy 1 or 2 percent of the population — would no longer have extra money to spend (assuming that they do not have everything they want already) and would therefore cause great job losses is a fairy tale (polite language for “a lie”). (Typical for the Left, Mr. Kligerman confuses two concepts: High income earners and wealthy people. The two are not the same. Leftist rhetoric attacks the highest wage earners as the top 1%, but they are not necessarily rich. But the real problem is his simplistic equation. Jobs are created when there's work to do, not simply when there's money to spend.

The problem in the economy is not that the rich aren't spending their money [or by an extension of Mr. Kligerman's logic, that they aren't being taxed enough so that government can spend it], it is because there is not enough work to be done, because people aren't buying things. However, to speak to his point, it doesn't matter how much a person has or earns when it comes to taxation. Taxation takes money from the person who earned it and gives it to someone who did not. It has absolutely zero to do with how much the taxee can afford. Taxes are not based on affordability, they are based on the need for government to raise revenue.)

After all, a millionaire who had $1 million 10 years ago, when the Bush tax cuts went into effect, would today, without investing any of that money and just letting it accumulate at the .046 percent tax rate savings, have a total of $1,714, 438 (by compounding the savings). (Um, no. The accumulated amount would be 1,004,509.12. The lump sum accumulation described by Mr. Kligerman would need to earn a rate of 5.55% to get to $1,714,438 in 10 years. But even then, the earnings themselves are subject to taxes.)

Someone who had $10 million 10 years ago, would have $17,154,380. And someone who had $100 million 10 years ago would have $171,154, 380. This has nothing to do with new revenue on their part. It would happen automatically. (Automatically? So a person who is thrifty and responsible, who sets aside some of their money, invests wisely, and manages to increase his savings is getting there automatically? Nonsense.)

Federal judge rejects Nativity displays in Santa Monica - analysis

A lot has already been said about this, but I do have a couple of comments. Posted here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments at the end.

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

LOS ANGELES (AP) — There’s no room for the baby Jesus, the manger or the wise men this Christmas in a Santa Monica park following a judge’s ruling Monday against churches that tried to keep a 60-year Nativity tradition alive after atheists stole the show with anti-God messages.

U.S. District Judge Audrey B. Collins rejected a motion from the Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee to allow the religious display this season while their lawsuit plays out against the city.

Collins said the city was within its constitutional right to eliminate the exemption that had allowed the Nativity at the oceanfront Palisades Park because the change affected all comers — from Christians to Jews to atheists — and provided other avenues for public religious speech.

The coalition of churches that had put on the life-sized, 14-booth Nativity display for decades argued the city banned it rather than referee a religious dispute that began three years ago when atheists first set up their anti-God message alongside the Christmas diorama.

The judge, however, said Santa Monica proved that it banned the displays not to squash religious speech but because they were becoming a drain on city resources, destroying the turf and obstructing ocean views. Churches can set up unattended displays at 12 other parks in the city with a permit and can leaflet, carol and otherwise present the Christmas story in Palisades Park when it is open, she said.

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

The first paragraph is remarkable. I cannot recall another instance where the writer characterized the nativity issue this way. "Atheists stole the show with anti-God messages" sounds unusually hostile to the atheist position. In the interest of fairness, however, though the bias happens to go my way this time, it is still bias and is not appropriate in a news story.

The judge says that the city of Santa Monica (ironically named after Saint Monica, the Mother of Augustine) is within its constitutional rights to act the way it did. Um, wow. For all the noise the Left makes about corporations not being people, here we discover that a city has constitutional rights. But of course, governments do not have rights. They have constitutional duties and restrictions, nothing else. As such, they can only act if they have specific authorization to do so in the documents that created them and grants them power.

Ordinarily I would argue that the US constitution applies specifically to the federal government, so state and local documents are the ones really applicable. But that is not the contemporary interpretation of the reach of the constitution, so I'll simply use it to say that "Congress shall make no law..." That is, no government agency or body has the authority to make laws or rulings regarding religion, whether pro or con.

But why not take a look at the charter of the City of Santa Monica to see what powers it grants the city? In section 400 we find this: "The enumeration in this Charter of any particular power shall not be held to be exclusive of or any limitation upon, this general grant of power." That sounds eerily like the 9th amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In other words, the city of Santa Monica claims power for itself in a manner like the US constitution restricts government power!

So although the Charter grants power to do pretty much anything that is not prohibited elsewhere in the document, we must conclude that it grants itself this power illegitimately, on the basis that the exercise of this power would be at the expense of the powers claimed by the people.

The article continues: "Santa Monica proved that it banned the displays not to squash religious speech but because they were becoming a drain on city resources, destroying the turf and obstructing ocean views." This is pretty thin stuff. The expense incurred by the City is perhaps the only instance I know of a government body actually taking steps to lower an expenditure. But I would venture to say the the expenditure was made because of the suit brought by the atheists. So the translation is, "We allowed the nativity scene until we started having to pay our attorneys to defend the lawsuit, so rather than spend any more money we'll just knuckle under to their strong arm tactics and violate the rights of those who are less likely to sue us."

Pathetic.

Israel the aggressor - FB conversation

I posted this on FB:

"GAZA (Reuters) – Four members of the same family – four-year-old twin boys and their parents – were killed in an Israeli air strike in Gaza on Monday, the Hamas Health Ministry said."

So the "Hamas Health Ministry" is now a legitimate news source, according to Reuters?

B.R.: Can you give me a brief overview of your perspective of the Israel/Hamas conflict?

Me: Two groups of people who hate each other are bombing the shit out of each other.

B.R.: Oh good, then we share the same perspective. Do you have an allegiance or bias toward one or against the other? And if so, why?

Me: Probably toward Israel. They won the 1967 war, and to the conqueror goes the spoils. But also, they are a tiny nation surrounded by their enemies who want their land, not because they're entitled to it or even need it, but because they want to wipe them out. I frequently end up rooting for the underdog, it seems.

B.R.: Cool, thanks. Have you seen any compelling arguments that Israel is actually the bully in this present-day conflict?

Me: Israel is aggressive when it launches attacks. In a sense I respect that. Much better than the namby-pamby way we waged the Iraq war (not that I supported that war, I didn't. I just figured that once we were there, we ought to have played it to win and kicked ass.) Thing is, the issue is way beyond who started it. Israel has its country, established by acclamation, and their enemies can't stand that. Israel will do what it deems necessary to protect that. We might not agree with their methods, but it's really none of our business. The US needs to keep its nose out of other nations' business. Your perspective?

B.R.: I'm completely impartial; I have neither the information nor the emotional attachment required to take a position. I'm trying to learn more, but the more I learn, the less I want to side with either group. It's very tricky to weigh in on the US' involvement in other countries' military actions. On one hand, I want to intervene in Syria. On the other hand, I don't. I'm very glad we entered World War II, in fact I wish we'd entered sooner. There doesn't seem to be a simple line between the instances we should stay out of and the instances we should enter into. Or at least, with every president, that line either shifts or becomes fuzzier.

Me: I understand the intervention difficulty. WWII, we were attacked. That is a good reason to enter a war. Oil, well, I'm not so sure.

Americans urged to get one HIV test - analysis

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My commentary interspersed in bold.

-------

This little bit of news reads like a press release. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is a government agency with an advisory board made of of healthcare professionals. Their website has this logo and motto:

Take health care into your own hands

I note this only because the motto is completely at odds with the whole thrust of government activity in the healthcare market, including ACA. Quite the opposite of the motto, healthcare is systematically being taken out of our hands by people who think they can choose for us better than we can choose for ourselves.

Thus this article, which tells us that The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has a new recommendation for us: universal HIV testing.
-------------

WASHINGTON: There’s a new push to make testing for the AIDS virus as common as cholesterol checks (well, no. Cholesterol checks are done more than once in a lifetime, while this HIV proposal is once for everyone.).

Americans ages 15 to 64 should get an HIV test at least once — not just people considered at high risk for the virus, an independent panel (of a government agency) that sets screening guidelines proposed Monday.

The draft guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (This is the same group that famously recommended that "...women in their 40s should not routinely have mammograms and that women between ages 50 and 74 should have mammograms every two years instead of annually.") are the latest recommendations that aim to make HIV screening simply a routine part of a checkup, something a doctor can order with as little fuss (Because we don't want people fussing about being tested for something they have little risk of contracting) as a cholesterol test or a mammogram. Since 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also has pushed for widespread, routine HIVscreening.

Yet not nearly enough people have heeded that call: Of the more than 1.1 million Americans living with HIV, nearly 1 in 5 — almost 240,000 people — don’t know it. Not only is their own health at risk without treatment, they could unwittingly be spreading the virus to others. (There is only one reason that this recommendation is being made. It is to continue the thrust into the public consciousness of certain preferred issues and make them a part of our thinking. Consider that the Task Force is proposing testing based on a premise, that is, a number of people are unaware of their condition and are spreading HIV. Let's run the numbers. 1.1 million infected people constitutes .035% of the population (I bet that you thought it was much higher given the amount of hysteria surrounding funding, etc). Of those, 240,000 people are unaware of their condition, an infinitesimally small percentage of the population.

For this number, the Task Force deems it necessary that EVERYONE get tested. By contrast, according to the CDC, every year 210,000 women get diagnosed with breast cancer, 935,000 are diagnosed with heart disease, and 215,000 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer.

There is no real possibility of bringing the risk of contracting these conditions to zero. But with HIV, you can. Remain celibate until marriage, marry someone who is the same, and remain faithful after, and you will never catch HIV.

But the real irony of the whole situation is that there is no contingency to the testing, so testing will not reduce the incidence of HIV. No one is asked to change their behavior or cease engaging in risky activities. Well, except condoms, but that is the, shall we say, prophylactic argument used to insulate advocates from their critics.

In other words, the only thing gained by universal HIV testing is a person will know they are infected, but precious little else. The disease will not be stopped, it will not even be reduced. But the cause de jour will receive all sorts of press coverage, complete with sob stories and mentions of how eeeevil conservatives are for not caring and for not increasing HIV research funding.)

Monday, November 19, 2012

GOP would do well to craft inclusive policy - Letter by Jay Moor

My responses interspersed in bold. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes.

---------------------
Bill O’Reilly of Fox noticed. “[I]t’s not a traditional America anymore,” he said. “The white establishment is the minority.” Neo-cons, neoliberals and the oligarchs — the white establishment — saw it coming and decided an open democracy (open democracy is the enemy of the Left. If the Left ever let it slip what they really believe, they would never win another election. Their modus operandi is to obfuscate. They whip up peoples' emotions with bumpersticker slogans and empty rhetoric, trotting bogeymen and monsters to scare people. As we read the rest of his letter, you will find these techniques everywhere.)

no longer worked to their advantage. So they let loose an engine of change powered by nihilist politicians, an activist Supreme Court, ALEC, a corrupted Congress, rigged elections, faithbased constituencies, profitoriented media and a co-opted Republican Party (I know it's a 300 word letter to the editor, but all we have here is a list of devils. Let's see if Mr. Moor actually substantiates any of his assertions).

Daines a prefect (sic) corporate puppet, won’t fix politics - Letter to editor by Cara WIlder

Here's another local letter writer who values compromise so much. I dealt with this leftist template here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My responses interlaced in bold.

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

In their recent column (“Daines can reach across aisle for Montana” Nov. 11, 2012), the Chronicle editorial board came to the bizarre conclusion that Steve Daines will end partisan gridlock in Washington (The hallmark of a good leftist: subtly change what was actually written and then refute the new statement. The Chronicle wrote that they hoped he would end gridlock, not that he would.) and act as a rational voice for Montanans as our congressman-elect. Really? Were they actually buffaloed by Daines’ aw-shucks-goodol’-boy “moderate” routine during the campaign? (If you read Mr. Daines' website or do any other sort of research about him, including his critics and his opponent Ms. Gillian, there is no indication anywhere that he was representing himself as a moderate) Daines has absolutely zero experience in Washington, making him the perfect corporate puppet. (Nonsense statement. Everyone who is in D.C. was at the level of zero experience. Might we ask how much experience his opponent has in D.C.? Might we also ask about Obama's level of experience the day he darkened the door of the oval office?) His carefully scripted campaign, using the hollow slogan, “More Jobs, Less Government,” (Hollow? Can you say "hope and change? For some reason the Left is highly offended by the idea of less government. Anyway, I dealt with his campaign slogan here) was bought and paid for by pro-life, pro-coal Super Pacs, including FreedomWorks, founded by Tea Party sugar daddy David Koch (naturally, only republicans accept money from PACs and sugar daddies *cough* George Soros *hack* Peter Lewis *choke* Bill Mahar).

In lockstep (oh, those goose-stepping neo Nazi republicans. Godwin's law alert!) with the extreme wing (leftists love that word "extreme." Ms. Gillian herself used it to describe Mr. Daines multiple times. Of course, it is a word that is used for its emotional content, a rhetorical devise to marginalize a person without actually dealing with fact, reason, or logic) of the Republican party, Daines has promoted a balanced budget amendment via broad federal spending cuts in agencies including the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency, and pushed extending the Bush tax cuts for ‘job creators’ as a means to stimulate the economy. (damned good ideas, all of them.) The board uses Sen. Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act as an example of good legislation that outgoing Congressman Rehberg stalled with extreme partisanship (there's that word "extreme" again. And of course, the left never is partisan. They never hold legislation hostage or cause it to die in committee. They never make back room deals or hide crucial evidence from the public.) and Daines will be able to negotiate by reaching across the aisle. Why would we believe Daines would perform any differently than hyper-partisan (hyper-partisan? There once was a day that people used to admire principles) Rehberg once he gets to Washington? Daines is beholden to the same corporate donors, and espouses the same philosophies on all the major issues as his predecessor (hopefully this isn't true. Rehberg compromised too much. I hope Daines sticks to his guns and avoids getting co-opted by this fake "compromise" crap).

The Chronicle, for some inexplicable reason, endorsed Daines over State Sen. Kim Gillan, who offered an excellent track record of proven bipartisan success in Helena. (not to impugn the writer in any way, but I'd have to see proof of this.) I certainly hope the Chronicle is right about Daines being the bridge for bipartisanship in Washington, but I’m not holding my breath. Unless I am really missing something, it appears we’re sending a carbon copy of our last congressman to join the ranks of the most partisan, lowest-rated Congress in U.S. history (And the senate, controlled by democrats polls extremely low as well. Perhaps Ms. Wilder might explain that?).

Cara Wilder

Inevitably, compromise according to the leftist template is the ability to agree to a bit less spending, a bit less bigger government, and a bit less loss of liberty in the name of bipartisanship. So instead of driving 100 mph towards the cliff, we'll only do 85.

So the letter writer thinks that Mr. Daines is not a compromiser, that he won't be satisfied reducing the headlong plunge to 85. Heaven forbid, he might want to stop the car! We can't have that.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Man challenges ban on offensive speech - Bozeman Chronicle - my analysis

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My commentary below.

-------------
HELENA (AP) — The Montana Supreme Court could be left sorting out which profane words are OK to hurl at someone as it weighs the case of a man who argues a sexual slur he used against a public employee is constitutionally protected speech.

Randall Jay Dugan of Belgrade used a sexual slur with a Gallatin County Victim Assistance Program worker during an October 2009 phone call, after the worker said she would not help him obtain a protection order against his children’s mother, who was to be released from prison. He then hung up.

Dugan was convicted under the state’s Privacy in Communications law, which prohibits the use of electronic communication to offend another person with obscene, lewd or profane language.

Dugan’s public defender, Kristen Larson, argued the state law is overly broad and violates free-speech rights in both the Montana and United States constitutions.

She argued that Dugan did not call with the intention to harass, but only used the slur after becoming exasperated with the call.

“It is important to remember that this case began with Mr. Dugan needing help,” Larson said of Dugan’s worries over the mother’s release from jail. “He was afraid she would take his children.”

The argument faced some skeptical questions from the justices.

“Are you saying the constitution no longer allows us to protect that public servant from being reamed out in a lewd way by someone who calls on the phone?” asked Justice James Rice.

Dugan called the female Gallatin County victim services’ representative a “f------ c---.”

Justice Brian Morris said the court could be put in the position of sorting out which naughty words are OK.

“If he had called the victim here a bitch, would that violate the statue?” Morris asked. “How about a jerk?”

Other Montana Supreme Court cases have held that words exchanged in face-to-face confrontations that could reasonably start a fight are not protected speech.

State prosecutors argued that Dugan’s slur constituted such “fighting words” that are not protected by the First Amendment. They argue the law is fair warning on what sort of conduct is forbidden.

Assistant Attorney General Tammy Hinderman argued that Dugan had earlier been loud and disruptive in a meeting in the county office and had been told to call back later — which led to the exchange he was charged with. And she argued the county worker has a protected privacy interest from such abusive language while in her office.

But justices quizzed prosecutors on the case, which involves telephone calls, emails or other communication technology. They pointed out that similar prosecutions around the country that have withstood constitutional scrutiny included repeated occasions of profanity over a long period of time — while Dugan used the sexual slur and then hung up.

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

In a surprisingly even-handed AP report, the issues are fleshed out well enough that people on either side of this issue might make some reasonable conclusions. It's not often I commend the AP...

The issue presented is this: Does government have the authority to decide amongst various kinds of speech, based on obscenity, offensiveness, or even good manners? What does the First Amendment say? "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..." And the Montana Constitution? Article II, Section 7: "No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech or expression. Every person shall be free to speak or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty."

But the law in question, 45-8-213, says that a person violates the "privacy in communications" law if "...with the purpose to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy, or offend, communicates with a person by electronic communication and uses obscene, lewd, or profane language, suggests a lewd or lascivious act, or threatens to inflict injury or physical harm to the person or property of the person. The use of obscene, lewd, or profane language or the making of a threat or lewd or lascivious suggestions is prima facie evidence of an intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy, or offend."

We must conclude that 45-8-213 violates the Montana Constitution! "No law shall be passed..." seems pretty clear. But beyond that, can you imagine that it is illegal in Montana to annoy or offend someone? I'm frankly surprised that the floodgates aren't already opened up with all sorts of lawsuits from "offended" people.

The quote from Justice Rice is worthy of note: “Are you saying the constitution no longer allows us to protect that public servant from being reamed out in a lewd way by someone who calls on the phone?” Well Justice Rice, what does the constitution say? And where do you think you get the authority to protect anyone from being reamed out? You are a judge, you interpret the law. You judge the matters brought before you and rule based on the laws that constrain you. You are not a police officer charged with protecting people. And what about the protection of the citizen who has free speech rights that are being evaluated by a government entity to determine if those words can be said?

Having said all that, I do believe that people have to be responsible for what they say. The best way, I think, is for the people to set their own standard of behavior and be free to enforce it. It wasn't too long ago that if a lady's honor was insulted, her husband or a brother would pay a visit to the offender and offer him some timely advice. Most sensible people would listen to such advice. No courts are required.

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Wal Mart policies increase employees reliance on public assistance - moveon.org

I discuss Wal Mart here and here.

This is one of those things when you just can't quite come to grips with as far as its veracity. Even assuming it's all true, it just doesn't seem to line up. Add to that the obvious lack of the full picture as a result of of making vague claims, and what we end up with is something incomplete at best and deceptive at worst.

Regarding the first claim, I googled "80% wal mart food stamps" and could find no news report that documented this assertion. In fact the first 20 listings were left-wing websites. And several of the advertisements which appear when you do searches were government ads seeking foodstamp enrollees. Which suggests, of course, that government WANTS people to be on foodstamps. And it appears they are pretty successful, since I did find that 51% of the nation is on food stamps. So I wonder what the problem is that so many Wal Mart employees are supposedly on food stamps. Isn't that a good thing?

So Wal Mart gets $2.66 billion of government help. I googled this as well, and a bunch more left-wing sites came up. It appears that this claim is related to the first claim, just recalculated and then attributed to "help" that Wal Mart is supposedly getting. I thought at first that the "help" was tax breaks, infrastructure, and that sort of thing, but no one was claiming that. Apparently, Wal Mart pays its employees too little and as a result the government "helps" by making up the difference.

But my wife works at Wal Mart, and she notes that Wal Mart surveys the local economy of the towns where their stores are located to determine the prevailing wage, then adjusts that number upward to attract quality employees. In other words, Wal Mart researches the environment and then competes for employees by offering higher wages. My wife has worked for them for nearly 6 years, and has gotten promotions, raises, and bonuses every year. She has great benefits and working environment. Plus, when she was out for 11 weeks after shoulder surgery, they saved a job for her. It's really too bad that real-world examples like this are not more available to counter the capitalist-hating, success-bashing leftist meme.

Regarding Medicaid, well, this is another undocumented claim that I cannot locate the source of. Wal Mart has several great health insurance plans that are relatively inexpensive and have good coverage. Not everyone qualifies, of course, but that is the rules of the game: You know them, and you agree to work for Wal Mart or any other business based on the terms offered. And with the onerous requirements the government places on businesses the size of Wal Mart, it's a wonder they offer coverage at all.

Context, however, is everything. There is little we can discern about this compilation of "facts" about Wal Mart. We do not know how they calculated their figures or what they included. We can be sure, however, that the purpose of this is to continue to fan the flames of resentment about the success of Wal Mart, and truly, any excuse will do. Check out the links I provided, which offer some counterpoint to the nonsense promulgated by the Left.

Monday, November 12, 2012

Compromise and donkeys - FB conversation

FB friend B.R. posted this:

Pretend one is an elephant. This is the new bipartisan strategy. Sound good?

Me: step six never happens.

B.R.: how do you mean?

Me: Compromise is only a one way street in politics.

B.R.: You're saying the only compromise that ever happens is one side giving into the request of the other? There's no mutually beneficial compromises in politics?

Me: Pretty much. "Compromise" has been invoked for many years in politics, but compromise has always manifested as one side giving in to the other. You will recall that the debt ceiling deal in August of 2011 was characterized as being republican obstructionism. The same happened during the government shutdown under Newt.

The reason your comments captured my interest was today's opinion piece in my local paper: http://mountainmantrails.blogspot.com/2012/11/steve-daines-can-reach-across-aisle-for.html - And another one here: http://mountainmantrails.blogspot.com/2012/10/voters-should-support-compromise-in.html

Compromise, as far as I can tell, is when Republicans are persuaded to agree with Democrats.

J.R.: I can't believe that these poor folks are called "Obstructionists" just because they announce their intentions publicly and privately to never cooperate with the other side.

Me: Republicans: Public pronouncements, but private caving vs. Democrats: public pronouncements, but private inflexibility.

K.B.: I wish the GOP would quit signing all those pledges! As one media analyst remarked, "What is this, the Boy Scouts?"
When you sign a pledge, you've attached your name, your reputation, and your honor to a single idea, thereby making it impossible to embrace any alternatives without looking like a doofus and a weakling.
Pledging a single, inflexible point of view and then vowing to maintain it no matter what has no place in politics. Politics, by its very nature, is a fluid thing.
Anwar Sadat compromised. The West gave him the Nobel Peace Prize and hailed him as a hero. At the same time, he was the most despised person in all the Arab world. The extreme point of view won out when Sadat was assassinated.
Compromise is much more civil. And nobody needs to get killed over it.

K.B.: Or, to give a more modern example, the elder Bush said "Read my lips! No ... New ... Taxes!!"
When necessity forced him to depart from that pledge, it cost him all hope of a second term.

Me: Only one alternative has ever been tried: increasing taxes and spending more money. Increasing taxes has never reduced the national debt. I applaud those politicians who have the courage to try another way.

B.R.: What other way?

K.B.: If you are going broke, two things make a lot of sense ...
1) Cool it on the spending, and
2) Think of ways to bring in more money.

Me: Lower spending. Hasn't been tried yet. Cut spending for five straight years and I will embrace every tax increase you propose. If still needed.

J.R.: Are you kidding? "Lower spending," also known as "austerity measures," has been attempted as a solution many, many times throughout history (in the US and throughout the world) in response to recession. It always has the same effect: it prolongs the recession. Recent examples include Japan (mid-90s to present) and currently in Europe, notably Greece.

Me: Except that "austerity measures" are comprised almost exclusively of tax increases and benefit delays. I challenge you to find a single austerity measure that has cut total real spending by any amount. http://mountainmantrails.blogspot.com/2012/11/greece-narrowly-passes-crucial.html

http://mountainmantrails.blogspot.com/2012/10/austerity-in-czech-republic-is.html

Sorry to refer you continuously to my blog, but I have already covered this ground there.

J.R.: Examples of recent significant austerity cuts include those in Ireland, Spain, Greece, and the UK making drastic cuts in social welfare and aid to families with dependent children, as well as broad reductions in wages for government employees, ranging from 3 year freezes to as much as 25% wage cuts.

Me: I have noticed some reports of that nature, but what I asked for was an austerity measure that cut total real spending by any amount. My point being, there is no government austerity, there is only taxpayers having to pony up more dough.

J.R.: Hmm, maybe I don't understand your point. The examples I gave represent direct reductions in government spending... Are you looking for austerity measures that reduce the SIZE of government (e.g. eliminating the Dept of Homeland Security)?

Me: Well, if a department is eliminated, the government can still grow (remember the "peace dividend?"). The elimination of a department has never happened anyway.

However, austerity in common parlance is the reining in of expenses, cutting back and reducing obligations. No government has ever done this in an attempt to avert a financial crisis.

Austerity as it applies to government means enhancing the financial take of government at the expense of the taxpayer. Therefore, the only party experiencing austerity in this scenario is the people.

J.R.: Gosh Rich, I'm trying but I just can't figure out where our disconnect is. You're saying that no government has ever reined in expenses, cut back, and reduced their obligations, and it seems to me that the examples I offered did exactly that. Is your main point that "austerity measures" ultimately hurt people without truly shrinking the size & power of government itself?

Me: Sorry for my lack of clarity. This might represent a paradigm shift of sorts, since the news so poorly reports the issue.

Your examples in some fashion represent reductions in benefit payouts, "cuts" if you will. However, we may also call that a tax increase, since the net effect is to deprive someone of money they would have otherwise had.

But we must note that this says nothing at all about the totality of government spending, because most certainly that saved money was spent elsewhere, plus even more money, and certainly, enhanced by additional taxation.

Those "cuts" were only cuts to specific expenditures, not cuts to government. And they were very small compared to the increase in taxes, removal of deductions and tax credits, and the delay of benefits eligibility. In any case, you can see that government imposed no austerity on itself, it only did so on its people.

Just to restate, unless government expenditures were subject to a real reduction as compared to prior expenditures (or even kept flat!), there has been no austerity.

O.C.: Your examples in some fashion represent reductions in benefit payouts, "cuts" if you will. However, we may also call that a tax increase, since the net effect is to deprive someone of money they would have otherwise had. "

No. If your definitions are that muddy and you're willing to make blurry statments like that then no one reasonable will ever be able to follow your logic. Come again?

Your last paragraph is much clearer though.

Me: My premise is that there is no government austerity. Only the people themselves are being made to sacrifice. Giving up a benefit is a sacrifice of the people, not government. My assertions remain intact.

B.R.: Then how can a government take actual austerity measures?

Me: Ahhhh... you nailed it. The people always bear the cost of government. Every place the government takes wealth from some of the people and pays it out to others, it creates a group of people who will be hurt by government if it cannot pay its obligations.

Austerity for government would represent a fundamental shift in structure that it will never do. there is too much power at stake, and government never willingly gives up power.

B.R.: Then what's the definition of "lower spending", since you say it's the real solution that we haven't tried yet?

Me: When the actual amount spend this year is lower than the prior year. I'll accept flat spending as an acceptable definition, since inflation is part of the equation.

B.R.: Even though the people will be the only ones negatively affected by that lowered spending?

Me: We have seen the results of the interruption of the flow of cash in European nations. This is the nature of entitlement.

The decision ultimately is not if people will be hurt, it's which ones. You can be sure that government won't be.

Steve Daines can reach across aisle for Montana - Bozeman Chonicle - my analysis

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. Comments after the article.

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

With his election to the U.S. House, [conservative] Steve Daines’ life just took a dramatic turn. But as a freshman congressman, he has a chance to nudge the politics in Washington toward an equally dramatic change.

Partisan politics has halted nearly all meaningful action in Washington. Extremists in the House have hijacked that chamber. In the Senate, the filibuster rule has been invoked on an unprecedented level to stop any significant legislation in its tracks. The only thing that will break this gridlock is a willingness to compromise on the part of all parties.

That’s where Daines comes in. And he can start with some willingness to compromise on an issue of critical importance to Montanans: the resolution of management policy for the state’s public lands.

Three years ago, [liberal] Sen. Jon Tester introduced his Forest Jobs and Recreation Act — a mix of timber harvest and wilderness designation for land on Montana national forests. The act was the product of negotiations between wilderness advocates, timber industry representatives and recreation activists. The bill would set aside portions of national forest land as wilderness and recreation areas, but would also mandate the harvest of designated volumes of timber over a specified period of time.

The bill holds promise for all Montanans. Timber mills will get more wood, which means jobs for loggers and millworkers. And wilderness advocates and recreationists will get more areas designated for their activities.

But outgoing Montana Rep. Denny Rehberg [conservative] stopped the legislation over partisan issues that most Montanans don’t care a whit about.

Daines can change that.

Montanans have been deadlocked for decades over how to manage millions of acres of roadless lands within the state’s borders. The holy grail of a statewide wilderness bill is nowhere in sight. But if the entire Montana congressional delegation can get behind Tester’s bill, it can likely win passage and set a precedent for resolving the fate of other public lands in the state.

Steven Daines can change the way things have been done in Washington for the past few years by looking at this legislation with an open mind. We encourage him to do just that.
------------
Mr. Daines was elected because of his stances on the issues. He is under no obligation to get along with or compromise with anyone. In fact, I hope he stands firm on his principles and does not cave to the pressures of office. If he manages to do that, he will be one of the precious few who doesn't get co opted by the power structure of D.C..

Notice that it is "extremists in the House...," as if there weren't extremists until the TEA party came along. If only we could get those people out of there, something (in favor of the democratic agenda) might get done! But as far as I'm concerned, the less legislation that is passed, the less liberty gets frittered away.

"Compromise" has been invoked for many years in politics, but compromise has always manifested as one side giving in to the other. You will recall that the debt ceiling deal in August of 2011 was characterized as being republican obstructionism. The same happened during the government shutdown under Newt.

Compromise, as far as I can tell, is when Republicans are persuaded to agree with Democrats.

Republicans: Public pronouncements, but private caving vs. Democrats: public pronouncements, but private inflexibility.

Some campaign tips for Republicans - letter by Tom Noble

My comments below. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes.
-------------
Tom Noble writes: Stop thinking of yourselves as the only people in the country who work for a living; you’re not. Don’t try to win elections through voter suppression, it’s illegal, and it only worked once (2000). Don’t employ the incredibly cynical tactic of changing parties in an attempt to confuse and coerce the electorate (Mike Comstock).

Don’t compare immigrants to farm animals. Don’t try to tell women how their bodies work. If you’re a federal judge, you shouldn’t email racist cartoons of the president. Stop trying to “quick fix” our economy by inventing bogus financial products. Stop trying to give away our publicly owned resources to corporations.

Try reading something other than “Atlas Shrugged,” and getting your news somewhere other than Fox. If you do, you may discover that you’re not quite as smart as you think you are. Remember, ignorance and arrogance go hand in hand.

An old adage in business management is: “lead, follow, or get out of the way.” You’ve bungled your chance to lead, and if you don’t want to follow, you’ll find yourselves out of the way. You’re a lot closer to irrelevance than you might think.
------------
Contained in this letter is just about every leftist bumper sticker slogan there is, presented to us in a fashion that suggests that the author is providing self-evident truth. Mr. Noble, a Leftist, offers suggestions to IMPROVE the republican party? Why, so that republicans might improve their chances of winning? Really? Let's analyze a few of his claims.

1) Stop thinking of yourselves as the only people in the country who work for a living; you’re not. This remark obviously comes from the controversy surrounding the video of Romney explaining his election strategy regarding tax cuts would not resonate with the 47% who do not pay taxes. The meaning has since morphed to Romney doesn't care about the 47% to Romney thinks the 47% are lazy to this latest incarnation: The 47% don't work for a living. But of course, no republican has ever suggested that they are the only people who work for a living, so the entire premise of Mr. Noble's remark is nonsense.

Atheists and values - FB conversation

FB friend B.R. posted this:

Yeah, I'm totally cool with this. In fact, when a declared atheist is elected to office, I hope he/she takes their oath over whatever book brings them the most inner peace and faith in humanity.

America's First Ever Hindu Congresswoman Will Take the Oath of Office Over the Bhagavad Gita jezebel.com

Me: I notice your two provisos for atheists, inner peace and faith in humanity. Why should they value them?

B.R.: Why shouldn't they? Belief in a determined God-figure is not required for inner peace and faith in humanity. I know many atheists who possess both provisos, and a few folks who believe in God but have neither.

Me: You miss my point. On what basis would you suggest that an atheist value the things you value? What other people possess is not relevant.

B.R.: Oh. Well. Then you can consider it wishful thinking. I pray that all human beings find inner peace, but obviously it's not a prerequisite for being an elected official. I would hope that elected officials have faith in humanity, but again it's not for me to say whether they do or not. Basically, I assume that Christians take the oath of office over the Bible because it represents their set of beliefs. Since atheists inherently have different beliefs, I hope they would choose a bound book that represents those beliefs. Inner peace and faith in humanity are just the ones I think are important. They can choose for themselves.

Me: Well said. You should have no expectation that they assent to the same values as you, or any values at all. But even to suggest that there is desirability for an atheist to select a symbol representative of their beliefs is in itself a moral imperative you are imposing. Further, to suggest that an atheist has any beliefs that should be explained or be adhered to is presumptuous. An atheist's values are of no interest or value to anyone other than the atheist.

D.G.: I disagree, Rich. A candidate's values are significant to me. I don't care what belief system those values arise from, and some values--e.g. prizing knowledge & accuracy--are often unrelated to belief systems that are traditionally considered religious or moral. But a candidate can't specify in advance how they'll respond to every possible policy issue, so their values are quite relevant to their performance in office.

B.R.: Thanks, I agree that it's foolish to expect them to have the same values. However, I'm completely satisfied to imposing an imperative that an elected official should take the oath of office by using a book that means something to them morally.

"Further, to suggest that an atheist has any beliefs that should be explained or be adhered to is presumptious." - Life has led me to understand that everyone has beliefs they adhere to, regardless of their religious commitment or lack thereof. I've never met someone without beliefs.

"An atheist's values are of no interest or value to anyone other than the atheist." - Why not? Why are they of any less value than a religious person's, especially in the scenario that they're an elected official?

Me: D.G., I quote agree, a candidate's values are significant to me as well. But we are talking specifically about atheists. An atheist's values, if any, are chosen based on whatever criteria he might deem important, and abandoned or modified in the same way. You or anyone else who might place expectations on an atheist to value something or perform or believe in a certain way is an imposition of your values upon the atheist. The atheist as well has no moral imperative to impose his on you. One might justifiably wonder how an atheist can govern without imposing values.

Me: B.R., it is true that everyone seems to have values. This is not being disputed. It is the nature of those values, how they are arrived at, and the obligations we might put on ourselves to act or not act on them that is the issue. If values are personal and individually determined, embraced, modified, and rejected, then they are only relevant for the individual.

Feminism - Mark Minter - FB discussion

Once Upon A Time..."Because it is unwise to risk the good we already have, for the evil which may occur."

We hope you get out there and vote-- a lot of people fought (against ideas like these!) for your chance to do so!

Me: Interesting that you post that. http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/system-failure/

B.R.: Interesting how? I read your link - Mark Minter's spitting a lot of sexist delusion there, my friend. What's your take here?

Me: Specify.

B.R.: "You all need to understand in no uncertain terms, women despise you, they think little of you. They believe you brutish and violent, bull headed, and fundamentally stupid. They see you as big children that must be controlled and disciplined in order make you useful to them. And if you are not useful to them, if you do not provide those things that they wish from you, actually, more correct to say, those things they need from you, then you will not be a part of their lives." This is an idiotic perspective from a man who has personal issues with the women in his life. This is a clear example of a man who has an insecure relationship to femininity. This is hate-bred ignorance from a place in American history that is quickly dying off. This is the mind of the past, shut off from the potential of the future. This is a completely unfair perspective, from a man who is choosing the pretense of emasculation over the optimism of equal rights for both genders.

Me: Femininity or feminism? There's a big difference. I don't happen to agree with everything he says, but your a priori dismissal is unwarranted. The real question is not how much he might offend feminist sensibilities, but is there evidence that what he is saying could be true.

Me: “I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” – Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor
“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” -– Valerie Solanas
“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” — Andrea Dworkin
“Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” — Susan Brownmiller
“The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men.” — Sharon Stone
“In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” — Catherine MacKinnon
“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart
“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” – Catherine Comins
“All men are rapists and that’s all they are” — Marilyn French
“Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release.” — Germaine Greer.

Parade Magazine - Mark McKinnon on fixing government

This was in last Sunday's Parade magazine. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments are interspersed in bold.

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

FIXING GOVERNMENT

GOP strategist Mark McKinnon

(A more accurate moniker would be "former." Mr. McKinnon is a liberal Republican (or RINO) who resigned from his adviser position with the McCain campaign, saying, "I would simply be uncomfortable being in a campaign that would be inevitably attacking Barack Obama." He subsequently founded "No Labels," a group dedicated to compromise and bipartisanship.

He is finally identified correctly at the bottom of the article, but one would think that his current association should appear at the top. Indeed, I believe this representation is a strategic move in order to suggest that Parade is being fair by selecting a "Republican" to be published.)

There are no easy solutions to issues Like the fiscal cliff, immigration, and energy, but a number of reforms could be enacted to help Washington work better. (We first must take note of the premise he offers. It appears that he intends to show us how to solve the financial crisis, fix immigration and energy, and reform government. Let's see what he offers:)

Pass "No Budget, No Pay" legislation that would dock legislators every day they fail to pass a budget on time. (this would do nothing more than ensure the passage of a budget, even a bad one. This really solves no problem at all, because the potentially egregious contents of said budgets would remain)
Require an up or dawn vote on presidential appointments within 90 days or the nominee is confirmed by default. (This would be nice, I suppose. But the circus surrounding the appointment process is invariably as a result of democratic partisanship. Republicans tend to heavily support democratic nominations, even extreme ones like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, without so much as a peep. But again, what enumerated problem is being solved?)
End the use of filibusters to prevent a bill from reaching the Senate floor for debate. (Once again, I suppose this would be nice, but yet again no specific problem is solved.)
Allow members the ability, if they have a majority, to anonymously override a leader or committee chair's refusal to bring a bill to the floor. The names would be made public after the bill passes. (The anonymous portion of this is puzzling. Why make it anonymous, and why does the anonymity end after the bill passes, and why not after it fails? What does this solve? Are there repercussions to overriding a bill that deters congressmen from overriding? If so, the problem is the committee chair. But again, what problem does this solve? So far, Mr. Mckinnon has recommended only process changes, but no changes that will actually address the original criteria he described)

Voter fraud - FB conversation

J.S.: I have yet to see any D fraud. An R woman was arrested yesterday for trying to vote in Las Vegas and in Henderson. And the word Florida will be a synonym for voter suppression after this year's Rick Scott fiasco.

B.R.: Yeah Rick Scott needs to be held accountable once this is over.

Me: Well, I guess it's much better than a couple of goons dressed in black with nightsticks. http://swordattheready.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/black-panthers-at-polls.jpg

J.S.: Yes, a governor of one of the most populous states mandating that thousands of voters be left to wait up to 8 hours in chaotic lines, or having to drive hundreds of miles to get to the few early voting sites is way better than three mentally handicapped black men who ended up discouraging no one from voting.

Me: Absolutely.

J.S.: Here are the facts about the two guys: On Nov. 4, 2008, two NBPP members showed up, wearing military-style fatigues and berets, at a Philadelphia polling station, supposedly to protect black voters from having their rights violated. King Samir Shabazz, the local NBPP chapter leader, brandished a nightstick and made threatening remarks to voters (much of this was captured on a videotape reportedly made by GOP poll watchers). An eyewitness claimed that Samir Shabazz said, "Cracker, you are about to be ruled by a black man." Jerry Jackson, a certified Democratic poll watcher who also wore NBPP garb, accompanied him. Police officers arrived at the scene and forced Samir Shabazz to leave, though they allowed Jackson to stay. After the incident, the NBPP distanced itself from Samir Shabazz's actions and suspended the Philadelphia chapter.

Me: Correct.

As if their distancing was relevant: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/new-black-panther-party

B.R.: VS...tens of thousands of American citizens in Florida, whose ability to cast their vote is being endangered by the restriction of early voting and the disregard of the confusion and mayhem that results. Rich, you don't actually believe the NBPP incident is more damaging to democracy than the current situation in Florida, do you? If so, please explain.

Me: Non-issue. People wait for days to get the latest i-phone, people wait for hours at the DMV, people wait overnight to see the latest movie. Let 'em wait. Oh, and the ballot is 12 pages long. How long would that ballot take to complete, and what might that contribute to the length of the lines?

J.S.: And let them eat cake while they're waiting too!

Me: absolutely. Their lack of planning is not our crisis.

Redistribution of wealth a GOP myth - Richard Benert's letter

Once again I respond to a letter to the editor by Richard Benert. You'll find a previous commentary on his letter writing here.

My commentary is interspersed in bold.

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

We hear much these days about a vast redistribution of wealth going on in our country, making (according to Mitt Romney) 47 percent of us dependent on the government and generally destroying “our country’s moral fiber.” (I googled the phrase contained in quotes, and Romney never said it. Which means the Mr. Benert is trying to put words in Romney's mouth.)

Mr. Romney jokes about how Obama has so little time, but so much yet to redistribute. Others angrily call Obama a “Marxist,” although for some reason Robin Hood is still considered a hero. (Robin Hood is generally invoked by the Left as a hero. Seldom if ever does a conservative do so, except to point out that Robin Hood was stealing from the government and their oppressive taxation scheme.)

Actually, come to think of it, “from each according to his ability; to each according to his need,” is not such a horrible idea. It even sounds vaguely Christian. (Um, yeah. As quoted from that paragon of virtue, Karl Marx! Vaguely Christian, as in forcing people to part with their wealth so that government can hand it out? How is that even vaguely Christian?)

But are we, in fact, redistributing wealth in this country? There is reason to think that we are not. Consider an article from the middle-of-the-road “The Economist” (Oct. 13). Yes, it admits, nearly half of Americans pay no federal income tax and yes, (Oops. Despite his earlier statement, Mr. Benert now admits its accuracy.)

40 percent of all income taxes come from the top 1 percent of taxpayers. But if you take into account the loopholes and exclusions that mostly benefit those with money, (Mr. Benert has just quoted the statistic about the disproportionately greater share of income tax paid by the rich, but then asserts that loopholes and exclusions somehow impeach that figure? Perhaps Mr. Benert doesn't understand that the number he quotes is the ACTUAL TAX PAID, which is already reflective of those loopholes and exclusions.)

and the fact that nearly everyone pays payroll, state and local taxes, (This is irrelevant, the topic is income tax. Nevertheless, Mr. Benert is using as his evidence a problem with government which is actively opposed by conservatives. All these forms of taxation do nothing to further Mr. Benert's case, but in fact argues for his opposition. Further, it demonstrates that government has involved itself to pervasively into our private financial lives, so conservatives are once again correct.)

it turns out that “when you consider all taxes, the share paid by the wealthiest 1 percent falls to 21.6 percent, close to their share of pre-tax income, whereas the poorest quintile pay 2.1 percent, not much below their share of pre-tax income. America’s tax system does hardly anything to redistribute income.” (This conclusion is not justified by the facts presented. First, payroll taxes, of which Social Security and Medicare are the primary components, return to the taxpayer at some point, which negates Mr. Benert's point. And state and local taxes are an entirely separate issue, since the conservative position has to do with federal government. State and local governments must be addressed in their own contexts, since they are not federal issues.)

The article goes on to explain that over 60 percent of all “tax preferences” benefit the wealthiest 20 percent; only 3 percent help the bottom 20 percent. (Tax preferences mostly affect those who pay taxes? Wow, and we should be outraged at this?)

The government “spends” four times as much (through the mortgage-interest deduction) on housing for the well-off as it does for public housing for the poorest fifth. (Per household? Per quintile? It only stands to reason that a million dollar house has a substantially larger amount of loan interest, and therefore is a larger deduction. Again, a larger deduction is because of a larger expense, a perfectly sensible outcome.

But beyond that, the government "spends" nothing for deductions. Money that the government does not tax is not money missing from the treasury, because that money belongs to the taxpayer, not the government.)

That quintile does reap 30 percent of entitlement spending (mostly for the sick and elderly), but if that is what you call “redistribution,” then what’s the problem? (If we adopt the rhetoric of the Left, roads and sewers are also subsidies, as are libraries, fire and police, and garbage pickup. So it is hardly true that the "sick and elderly" are the primary recipients of government largess. By that measure, the sick and elderly are minor players in the equation.

But the real problem is that there are so many receiving government benefits, and to add insult to injury, they are simultaneously paying out. And none of it is having a positive effect on society. The country is teetering on the fiscal cliff, and people like Mr. Benert are content or explain it away or ignore it.

As is his habit, Mr. Benert attempts to draw conclusions based on incomplete or misleading data in order to establish his thesis. Unfortunately, his research appears to limited to leftist websites. )

Can't vote trickle down back into office - FB conversation

FB friend J.L. posted this:

Is anyone else physically sick with anticipation over Tuesday? The right side of my brain keeps telling me with this presidents record there is NO WAY he can win a second term. The left side continues to utter only one word... Ohio. Not even the train wreck of the Jimmy Carter presidency had America in the lurch it sees itself in today. With all his faults, President Carter never questioned the sovereignty of this great nation. If we ever needed morning in America it is now...

It's morning in America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=y4J59XbkAyo

S.R.: Sick? Really? First of all you were barely alive during Carter. Second of all the welfare programs which drive Montana's economy, house its poor, as well as charities like Habitat for Humanity were formed under Carter. But enough with the rhetoric spilling out Paul "We will just teach abstinence, and that will make everyone virgins" Ryan's mouth. Mitt even agrees that Obama inherited the financial crisis we are now in. The fact is, deregulation and corporate greed caused this mess. I have been in the bottom of the top tax bracket since I was 20. When the rest of you are philosophizing about the national debt, its actually me that is paying it. And I would rather pay it than have a politician tell my daughter what to do with her vagina. I would rather pay it than tell your kids they have to learn music and art from YouTube because congress needed another junket. I would rather pay it than tell your father and mother in law that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the VA are now vouchers that no longer support them, so rich guys can get richer. I voted for trickle down and deregulation. I believed it and I own the responsibility for its failure. However, it would be reckless of me to vote that back in to office. 1 guy is not going to fix the world economy. But the guy that is making you sick happens to be the war hawk that sent terrorism sprawling, something my party could not do. He is also the guy bringing those troops home to their families so we can rebuild our infrastructure. So, if you are going to vote republican, vote because you think life begins at conception and Romney and Ryan will reverse Roe v Wade. But vote because of facts, not because of sound bites. In any case, its not going to make me sick if Romney wins, it will just make me shrug and say "Oh well, I hope my family in Montana can survive what they voted themselves into.

S.R.: https://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/fas-10.pdf Before you vote you might check out page vii and then ask yourself it will still be around after Tuesday

Me: Hmmm. S.R., not one thing you wrote has any factual basis.

S.R.: Rich, saying its not true does not make it so. I challenge you to fact check any of it. You can start with the US Census, I supplied the link.

Me: It is you who supplied us with 500 words of unsupported assertions. I am under no obligation to fact check you until you cite your sources. And let me give you a little hint. The ravings of lunatic leftist websites do not count as sources.

S.R.: Rich, if you think the census bureau is a "lunatic leftist" website, then good luck in your cave and congratulations on your blissful ignorance. Anyone that lives in Montana and does not know that Montana is a welfare state probably thinks Obama was not born here, so here is some obligatory comedy.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bqEn8AXzJ4

Me: Your extended bumpersticker litany of assertions regurgitated from DNC talking points have nothing to do with the census link. Once again I put it to you, tell me your sources for virgins and veterans building infrastructure and deregulation causing the meltdown, because none of this even passes the smell test.