Let the Progressives / Liberals Have Their Way - Letter to Editor

Here is a “Letter to the Editor” submitted to the Register Mail by Dick Conklin of the Galesburg TEA Party.  I hope we make the right choice!

---

About 6 weeks ago my brother-in-law suggested we let the progressives/liberals have their way. Let them give as much money away to as many people and projects as they wish. Let them tax the wealthy and anyone else however much they desire. In other words let them construct an economic lab test. This should then settle finally the issue whether this thing called Keynesian Economics will work.

Fortunately new don’t have to wait the 2 to 4 years to determine the results of this experiment. We currently have a lab experiment on this issue pretty well near completion. It’s called Greece, and the lab results are pretty well complete. As far as I have read most economists freely admit Greece’s economic collapse is due to its extremely large public employee payroll and consequent legacy costs as well as a huge entitlement class, supported by a too small private sector. In essence the private sector in Greece and the wealth it creates is not sufficient to support Greece’s generous public payrolls, benefits and entitlements. In fact there apparently isn’t enough wealth in the rest of Europe to bailout Greece from its Public Sector Largesse.  There are also at least three more of these lab experiments coming close to finishing up and from all signs it’s pretty clear the results in Italy, Spain and Portugal will be the same. There may be other conclusions we will be able to draw from these economic laboratory experiments, but none so strikingly clear as that you can’t have a public sector without a thriving private sector.

The choice now is ours. Do we learn from these laboratory experiments or do we insist that we waste our own time and money re-running this experiment. Do we want Greece here in Galesburg and in every other community across the nation?  I am sure our children and grandchildren will hold us accountable for whatever we decide.

Dick Conklin

Galesburg TEA Party

Techniques of the Left, by Charlie Gruner

I have to express my gratitude to Christian Schock of Galesburg. His letter in the September 17, 2011 R-M, he gives me an opportunity to show examples of techniques he uses when he runs out of facts for his arguments.

The first technique is to try to marginalize your opponent.  Near the beginning of his letter, Schock writes that I am a TEA Party leader,assuming that many people will find that enough to dismiss my opinion. Then he adds that “facts don’t matter very much” to the TEA Party. Trying to marginalize me and/or the TEA Party makes the second technique easier if you succumb to the first.

The second technique is called mis-direction. Here’s how it works: Point out an opponent’s argument and then subtly change the subject.  In Schock’s first attempt at this he calls attention to my contention that insurance company officers would be jailed if their companies were run like Social Security. Schock then changes the subject to the relative administrative costs. My observations were on the fraudulent nature of the “product” and Schock focuses on administrative costs rather than the subject of the argument.

The next example of mis-direction is when Schock talks about the amount of income that the Social Security tax was to be levied on. He discusses the effects of inflation (though this was never explained in the promises of the original act) and says that the $3,000 figure is equivalent to$45,000 today. Granting Schock’s numbers, how does he explain that the maximum today is $106,800? That’s over three times the rate of inflation. He also ignores the fact that the rate of tax has also gone up over 600%.

After running out of gas on the subject, Schock then talks about the debt incurred to Social Security and blames Republican administrations. This is another subtle change in subject because I never specified party. In fact you will find that I and most TEA Party folks hold both major parties responsible.

In no part of Schock’s argument is there any factual information refuting the actual comparisons that I made between Social Security and Ponzni Schemes. In fact, at the very end of his letter Schock says that it is not a Ponzi scheme but blames the “Bush administration” because it is one. I’m not sure how that makes any sense.

Charlie Gruner

Galesburg 9/12 Group Member

A response to: Will Schick, Tea Party book pick a great read

This letter to the editor was recently published in the Galesburg Register Mail

Thanks to Will Schick for pointing out the ant-Christian sentiments of Thomas Paine to us Tea Partiers. Apparently his point is we have no business quoting Mr.Paine as his religious beliefs are opposed to that of the vast majority of Tea Partiers. To this I would like to quote, in Thomas Paine's own words, from a section on religion in his famous treatise Common Sense. "For myself I fully and conscientiously believe it is the will of the Almighty, that there should be diversity of religious opinions among us. It affords a larger field for our Christian kindness. Were we all one way of thinking our religious disputations would want matter for probation..."  So it appears religious believers and non believers of all stripes are welcome under Thomas Paine's tent.

In reading Ed Klapp's letter of 9/20 attacking Tea Partiers I really don't see anything to respond to. Much of it was pure ranting. And yes, I am guilty as he charges. I am anti Communist anti socialist, against government intervention in business ala Solyndra and in favor of deregulation. His charge we Tea Partiers are under the influence of the Koch brothers is no different than the charge that Progressives are mere pawns of George Soros and Michael Moore. How do you disprove either charge?
 
Both his letter and that of Will Schick are really distractions from the real issues and that is what we should be debating or discussing,i.e,  how do we live with $14 Trillion and growing debt, when there is not enough wealth, not income, but wealth to appropriate to remove our debt. Further what are the consequences for our children and grandchildren if we continue on the current path of $1 Trillion or more in deficits each year to add to our debt?

 

So rather than be distracted by name calling, and charges that can be levelled at both sides and questioning the shallowness of one side's reading list, why can't we debate the serious issues that confront us? Here's a good list to start with. Does Social Security really need fixing? If so, how? We know Medicaid and Medicare need fixing. How do we do it?  Why does the Department of Justice pay $16.00 per muffin and $52.00 per person for conference coffee breaks? Who was paying for those $16.00 muffins? If Obama Care is so great why will it take 16,000 IRS workers to enforce it?  Is the cost of these IRS workers included in the Health Care Reform cost or hidden in the IRS budget?  If Obama Care is so good, why, at the latest count that I heard, are there over 1,000 entities asking for and receiving waivers from it including some of Nancy Pelosi's own largest contributors. I recently came across an alternative proposal to health care reform that on the surface looks pretty good. Yet it never saw the light of day because the then Democratically controlled congress allowed no discussion on the issue. So why is an area as important as Health Care, which represents 1/6 of our economy, not open for debate, discussion and input from both parties? Can we not even now bring this very important topic back for open discussion in Congress as well as in the public forum.  Maybe Obama care is the best solution but we will never know until it is honestly debated in the public forum.

Theses are questions that should be honestly and openly debated, not which book I have read most recently.

 

Dick Conklin

Soon to be retired Tea Party Sympathizer

Will’s article: Will Schick: Tea Party book pick a great read

Social Security is a “PonziScheme”, says Rick Perry

This Letter to the Editor By Charlie Gruner of the Galesburg 9/12 Group was in today's Register Mail:

Texas Governor Rick Perry called Social Security is a “PonziScheme”

A Ponzi Scheme, namedfor Charles Ponzi, is a pyramid scheme where the schemer takes money form“investors” and promises far better than normal returns on that “investment”.In order to make the initial investors believe that the scheme is working hehas to pay out “profits” to fulfill his promises. He gets this money from thenext group of investors.

To keep the scheme solvent the schemer has to keep expandingthe base or increase the required investment from future investors. Eventuallythe Ponzi scheme is unsustainable and collapses.

When the Social Security Act was passed (August 14, 1935),it was sold to the American People as a form of “insurance”. (Any insurancecompany run like the SSA would be closed down and the officers jailed.) Therewere promises made to the public, among them that it would be voluntary, thatthe Social Security Number would never be used as identification, that the taxwould never exceed 2% and that only you, the SSA and your employer would everhave to know that number. Every single one of those promises has been brokenover the years.

Let’s examine Social Security against the Ponzi scheme. ThePonzi scheme is completely voluntary. Social Security is not, even though itwas originally presented as such. The Federal government does not have todepend on volunteers because it can, and does, use the power of coercion. Onceyou’re in, you cannot opt out. On this level the Ponzi scheme is the betterdeal. First, you don’t have to get in if you don’t want to. Second, you can optout at any time by simply not re-investing.

How about expanding the base that is continually bringing inmore money to pay out on the earlier investors? Social Security has increasedthe base in at least three ways. First, the people who were specificallyexcluded originally (including self-employed, professionals, certain governmentworkers, higher-income citizens, etc.) were required to join. I was required toget my Social Security card when I was 16 years old and got my first job. Nowyou cannot bring your new-born child home from the hospital without the card.

The second way that the base has been expanded is simply byincreasing the Social Security tax rates. Since 1937 these tax rates haveincreased 19 times. Third, the base was expanded by increasing the amount ofincome the tax applies to. In 1937 the rate applied only to income up to $3,000per year. This has been increased 42 times until it now applies to income up to $106,800.

The Social Security tax rate was decreased exactly once inthe last 74 years, by one-tenth of one percent, the exact amount of theincrease in Medicare tax. The Medicare tax was implemented in 1966, which couldaccount for 12 of the rate increases because Medicare and Social Security werededucted under one entry on your pay stub. That changed in 1991 when it wasdecided that the increases in the tax might be noted by the public easier ifthey were given one number rather than if they had to add them together, so nowthere are two line items. Medicare has worked in a way similar to SocialSecurity in that the base kept changing. The difference is that in 1991 thelimit on earnings was changed to No Maximum. Social Security taxes are appliedto income up to a maximum of $106,800 this year but there is no limit for Medicare.

A while back we all watched the news as Bernie Madoff wasconvicted of fraud. We were told that he built the biggest Ponzi scheme in thehistory of the world. Actually, Madoff’s scheme pales beside the fraud of SocialSecurity. Even the Social Security Trustees have been saying that the systemcannot be sustained for too many more years. But even that isn’t all. Rememberthe trillions of dollars that we are in debt? Social Security owns much of thatdebt. It’s not just China and Japan; it’s everyone in the country who has aninterest in the Social Security system. That means almost all of us.

Something has to be done to insure that people who aredependent on the system will not be abandoned, but it cannot go on forever.While it may be comforting to know that the government is going to look out foryou in your future, the reality is it can’t. What we as citizens have to do isbe vigilant and not vote for anyone who promises something that has to be paidfor by someone else or that offers us something for nothing. Now as always, “there’sno such thing as a free lunch”.

CharlieGruner

Knoxville, IL

Letter to the Editor: Farmland Fines

Dear Editor –

If you come toward Monmouth and you smell an odor, it isn’t coming from Farmland’s hog processing plant. It is coming from the federal government! We read that on August 22, 2011, the Justice Department settled with Farmland for, what seems to us, following the law!!!

The settlement of $290,400 was because Farmland was essentially protecting itself from litigation if they hired illegal aliens to work at the plant. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 established a prohibition on employers from hiring unauthorized workers and established criminal and civil sanctions. The lawsuit sited Farmland for “imposing unnecessary and excessive documentary requirements on non-US citizens and foreign-born US citizens when establishing their authority to work in the United States.” It seems to us, Farmland was covering itself because of all the fraudulent documentation that is available to illegal aliens.

Part of the problem is that on August 24, 2009, Illinois enacted S1133 prohibiting the state or localities from requiring employers to use an employment eligibility verification system. As of June 15, 2011, Illinois is the only state to impose limited usage of the E-Verify system. E-Verify was implemented by the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in partnership with the Social Security Administration (SSA) to help employers determine employment eligibility of new hires and the validity of their Social Security numbers. How else is Farmland to determine eligibility other than asking questions of potential new hires? Farmland is a private company. Where does the government get off thinking they have the right to control a company? The company has all the risk and provides a service to the community – jobs. What is government’s contribution? Uncertainty about the future.
To add to the uncertainty and confusion, IL passed HB 1743, which creates privacy and antidiscrimination protections for workers if employers participating in E-Verify do not follow the program’s procedures. Is your head swimming yet?

Government says it is OK to be here illegally but damned the company that works to have a legal operation.

Western IL can not afford to lose industry which in turn causes a loss in jobs!!! I’m not sure President Obama or Governor Quinn makes that correlation when they add more tax and regulation to companies, sign wishy-washy legislation and sue those companies that are needed to provide jobs. Western IL does not have an over abundance of industry. When one shuts down, the effect is devastating. Just ask Galesburg after Maytag left.

Businesses are there to make a profit. When they hurt, the entire community hurts along with them.

D. M. Wasson and C. J. Parrish
Monmouth Tea Party

link to the original article: http://www.galesburg.com/news/business/x1153511442/Farmland-to-pay-290-400-in-penalties

Letter to the Editor: Congressional Black Caucus Attacks Tea Party

 

This is a letter to the editor sent to the Register-Mail on Wednesday. It has not been in the paper yet.

I am writing about the 3 recent attacks on the Tea Party by the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC).

1) Rep. Maxine Waters , California Democrat, while addressing a community summit, said the Tea Party can go straight to Hell. Rep. Waters is currently under an ethics probe for obtaining $12 million in TARP money for One United Bank. Her husband Sidney Williams was a former director of the bank and owned $350,000 in bank stock.

2) Rep. Andre Carson, Indiana Democrat, while addressing a CBC event in Miami, said that some Tea Party affiliated Congressmen would love to see you and me (blacks) hanging on a tree. I would suggest Rep. Carson identify these Congressmen so we can vote them out of office.

3) Rep. Frederica Wilson, Florida Democrat, while addressing a jobs fair in Miami, said the real enemy is the Tea Party.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson also jumped on the Tea Party "dog pile". Jackson was speaking at a Martin Luther King luncheon and said the Tea Party is not new. It is reminiscent of the States' Rights groups of the past that fought federal integration. In case you forgot, Rev. Jackson was the one caught on an open microphone saying he wanted to neuter then candidate Obama.

I have been to a few Tea Party rallies and several Tea Party meetings. I have never heard a racist comment. When I attended my first Tea Party meeting, I was not greeted by a "Grand Inquisitor" at the door asking if I was a racist, homophobe, gun owner, Christian, pro life, right-wing extremist, big oil and corporate jet owner lover. I was merely welcomed to the meeting. The Tea Party has 3 core values - limited constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, and free enterprise. Our monthly meetings are educational in nature. Our members are encouraged to do research on pertinent issues affecting our Country such as social security reform, health care, immigration, tax reform, deficit reduction, etc. and present position papers to the group for open and honest discussion. Although many Tea Party members are already active in community service, we have been exploring ways to increase the service by possibly partnering with other groups.

I have found my fellow Tea Party members to be well-informed individuals who care deeply about the Country. I would like the CBC to adhere to Dr. King’s ideals of judging people by their character.

Kirk Heller

Galesburg TEA Party Member

Knoxville, IL