Vast Write Wing - July 2010

[lwoolley]

Jeff and others:

This is getting good! Your points are all perfectly defensible, but I have a different take on some of them.

I never felt like we were governed by a bunch of elites but rather by a number of citizen legislators and a few who cling to power even through brain tumors and severe old age. It has now become glamorous to be in Congress, and Congress has made it easy for incumbents to get re-elected ad nauseum, and so they tend to get more elitist. Obama takes the cake. He wants to remake America, go to Central Planning, and his ideological group will be the planners and the rest of us will be the plan-ees.

Now I LIKE idea of the Senate being appointed by the Legislatures. First, the Founders put it in that way and second, it would sure change a lot of lobbying techniques. We'd get elite senators, but we get them now. TV stations would be the biggest losers. The people would be able to influence the selections by lobbying their state legislators. More lobbyists would move out of Washington and to Austin and Sacramento. So repeal the 17th Amendment and stop all pretense. The Ledge would never nominate me to the Senate, but neither can I raise $10,000,000 for the TV spots necessary to win an election. So for me, it's a wash.

Now you could move to Wyoming. No Dallas. No Houston. Cheep TV. But you still get 1 vote out of 100 if you win and that's a heck of a deal. Just not many electoral votes if you decide to run for POTUS.

As to the World War scenario -- would we have had another one if we had sunk into depression -- ! I don't know. I suppose if the world fell into chaos and we were fighting over a piece of meat like two wild dogs, we might unleash the Atom Bomb -- but I think the AB is precisely why we haven't had another world war. Besides, there are lots of outside factors. We have different world leaders, different attitudes, different weapons, different alliances, global warming and the internet. The ONLY provable scenario is the one we took.

Not that government(s) should have done nothing; it's just that there were other things they could have done that might have worked as well or better. When we're told "act within 24 hours or the world comes to an end," I get suspicious. Obama could have done an across the board $787 billion tax cut. how would that have worked? Pretty darn well, I'll bet. Especially if he added the OTHER part of the Keynes plan -- when times get better, CUT SPENDING! That's the part everyone fails to do, even in the Reagan years. Even so, we had a couple of decades of a fabulous economy thanks to Ronaldus Maximus.

Buffalo Springfield. Steven Stills' best work in my opinion, even though I never knew what the hell the words meant, and I'm STILL not sure. "What it is ain't exactly clear." I believe in conspiracies; I just don't think they're conducted in secret. "Nobody's right if everybody's wrong." Well, I have no problem claiming the path of righteousness. I support the free market system, with modest but not overbearing government oversight. I want my bank to be financially healthy and my meat to be inspected and my potholes filled. But I could live in a world without Citibank. So let 'em go for all I care. Clean up the mess as the law provides and move on. BOA will be more careful at that point. GM should be more careful about its union contracts. Let 'em go for all I care. Someone will step up to buy the pieces and Chevrolets will still be made in all likelihood. Watch Chris Christie in New Joisey and see how the teachers union are faring!

Here's another good liberal song by the late Phil Ochs who once sang "Love Me, I'm a Liberal" and then blew his own brains out. There are no conservative folk songs, so I use this one as an example of what I DON'T believe. I make my own way. I choose my own path. And I don't look at the homeless and the "Have Nots" and whine "There But For Fortune." But it's a great song.

Lynn

Show me a prison, show me a jail
Show me a pris'ner whose face has grown pale

And I'll show you a young man
With many reasons why
There but for fortune, go you or I

Show me an alley, show me a train
Show me a hobo who sleeps out in the rain

And I'll show you a young man
With many reasons why
There but for fortune, go you or I

Show me the whiskey stains on the floor
Show me a drunk as he stumbles out the door

And I'll show you a young man
With many reasons why
There but for fortune, go you or I

Show me a country where the bombs had to fall
Show me the ruins of buildings so tall

And I'll show you a young land
With many reasons why
There but for fortune, go you or I
You or I

[lwoolley]

http://www.oaoa.com/news/bias-50499-boa ... ution.html

Rives fights 'pro-Islamic' bias
ODESSA AMERICAN
2010-07-23 22:17:21
An Odessa man says textbooks in Texas have a bias against Christianity and for Islam, and he submitted a resolution Friday morning to the Texas State Board of Education to address it.

Randy Rives, a former Ector County Independent School District board member, presented a resolution on “Democratic Values in Social Studies Textbooks” that argues past textbooks have devoted more passages to negative aspects of Christianity in history while downplaying or omitting those of Muslims.

“If you’re going to teach it, teach it all,” Rives said in a phone interview.

Rives said it wasn’t just an unconscious bias of authors but involved an intentional effort by certain investors.

“As more and more Middle Eastern companies get into the textbooks, there’s more of this going on,” Rives said.

Rives said in the resolution that the Social Studies TEKS says only what a course should cover and not what it should avoid.

The resolution said that under the Texas Administrative Code, the SBOE can reject Social Studies submissions that conflict with the Texas Education Code, such as the duty of the SBOE to uphold “the basic democratic values of our state and national heritage.”

The resolution is to be added as an agenda item in an upcoming meeting of the Board, EducationNews.org reported.

In March, Rives was defeated in the Republican primary for the SBOE seat by incumbent Bob Craig.

Texas Administative Code §66.66.

(4) ...No instructional material may be adopted that contains content that clearly conflicts with the stated purpose of the TEC, §28.002(h).

Texas Education Code Sec. 28.002.

(h) The State Board of Education and each school district shall foster the continuation of the tradition of teaching United States and Texas history and the free enterprise system in regular subject matter and in reading courses and in the adoption of textbooks. A primary purpose of the public school curriculum is to prepare thoughtful, active citizens who understand the importance of patriotism and can function productively in a free enterprise society with appreciation for the basic democratic values of our state and national heritage.

[lwoolley]

TEMPLE DAILY TELEGRAM

Dear Editor:

"Serving Central Texas Children" by Chris Derrett (7/24) is the saddest story I have read in the Telegram in a long while. The issue of abused and neglected children is a particular passion of mine, so I appreciate the sacrifices and good work of Denise Brooks-Robertson and her organization for providing 25,000 free meals to needy children over the summer.

There was, though, a sub-text to this story that the article did not address. What happened to cause a situation in Temple, Texas in which more than half the students in our schools are receiving free or reduced lunches? And why is it necessary for "Focus on Hope" to pick up the tab for the summer months?

I think two things caused it. First, the "war on poverty" that the Great Society gave us caused a massive dependence on government programs. Second, those same government programs made it possible, and even profitable in some cases, for women to have babies out of wedlock. So if a father is not available to provide, government then assumes the role.

I'll wager that most of the kids who are getting these free meals live in single-parent homes, raised mostly by their mothers. The fathers are AWOL and are not asked by society to contribute to the raising of their own children. I would have enjoyed seeing some thumbnail shots of the fathers of these kids.

The most telling quote in this entire article came from Ms. Robertson when she said the kids depend on the handouts: "They're now expecting this program." I guess they are. These kids are wards of the taxpayers when school is in session and wards of charity during the summer. By the time they get out of school, accepting welfare and charity is second nature. They don't know anything different. This is what a welfare state does.

I appreciate this effort because, like Ms. Robertson, I don't want these precious children to go hungry. But can we at least ask two questions? Where are the fathers? And how do we break this cycle?

Lynn Woolley

[lwoolley]

yes lynn, i can tell you are deeply concerned about poor and hungry children. you make fun of them
and put them down by stating that "accepting welfare and charity is second nature." just what do you
expect a six year old hungry child to do lynn--get a job somewhere in order to buy food.?

i never ceased to be amazed at the heartlessness and hypocrisy of the right wing. the republicans
vote against extension of unemployment benefits to those of our society hurt the most by the
recession, while supporting extension of tax cuts to the wealthy who dont really need them.

i am proud to be a progressive (that means one who supports progress) who cares about others
and not just his own wallet. and yes im willing for the tax rate to go up for me to help the needy
and promote and end to global warming.

the conservative position is always that we cant afford to help the most unfortunate of our
people, but we can always afford the costs of endless and senseless war and occupation.

alan northcutt, md
www.friendsofpeace.org


Alan,

You are the perfect liberal. Compassionate and nonjudgmental except when it comes to unborn children whom you would kill in a heartbeat. You have no desire to actually address a problem such a child poverty, but rather to enable it forever. Thank God people like you aren't running the country. Oh, wait a minute! They are!

Lynn

[lwoolley]

Re: Alan

A third question I would like to offer: “Why is a DNA sample not being run to determine paternity of babies born to single mothers? Once established, then the fathers by law are required to help support their children. This would put the responsibility where it belongs instead of on the taxpayers’ shoulders.” -- Donna Garner

[lwoolley]

SOL,
You hit the nail with your head this time. My church, Immanuel Lutheran, is
located at 43rd Street and Avenue H and we get lots and lots of folks from
the I-35 corridor and from under-the-underpasses with their hands out. We
do the best we can to help the truly needy (especially kids) and NOT
subsidize mediocrity and profligacy.
USL

[lwoolley]

its interesting lynn. it turns out that you are actually more radical than i--on the right. such
outrageous statements that i am for the terrorists, and that if i disagree with you i should move
to cuba. actually, i just want the israelis and the palestinians to be treated equally. and i believe
that a just 2 state solution would also be in the interest of israel. i may disagree with you,
but im not suggesting you need to move to uganda (anti-gay), or some country with a military
dictatorship.

is suggesting those who disagree with you need to move, really the voice of "logic" and the first
amendment.

alan

[lwoolley]

Ah, there you go again. Nothing like casting aspersions on people's characters. Why don't you put on your bigot britches, round up a squadron of Minute Men and head down to the South and investigate what happened to Shirley Sherrod's dad? The rabid right wing, snarling dogs of the wacky world nation demand that you do it. Fired up! Ready to go!

RUN Sarah RUN!!!!!

LS

[lwoolley]

Lynn, I think it is about time some news organization look into the death of Shirley's father. We have her story, but what is the rest of the story? Perhaps he was shot in the back by a white man after robbing a 7-11. If her father was murdered and a white man got a pass, why?
And the cliche about the burning cross, pleeeease. She forgot to mention sitting in the back of the bus on the way to school.
This woman is a race baiter!

Mike Licavoli
Harker Hts, TX

[lwoolley]

Dear Lynn,

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-1031 ... s-in-Texas

Just found out about this, it's a report of a mexican drug cartel that took over two ranches in Laredo. I called Gov Perry's office and asked them if this is true. They said that this information has been sent to the Homeland Security Specialist, Josh Havens, for verification, and any information they find out will be posted on the governor's website. Can you find out anything??

Thanks,

Layna Tatum

[lwoolley]

Lynn,

Some months ago you addressed this case on your show. I hope you can discuss this issue again now that the arson investigators have been cleared.

Thanks,

John
Midland



>>> john kondratick <fightin-irish@sbcglobal.net> 7/24/2010 10:30 AM >>>
http://ap.lubbockonline.com/pstories/st ... 0472.shtml

[lwoolley]

Hi Lynn,

Regarding Tony Hayward's compensation, unless you are a BP shareholder, it is none of your business. We should all

try at this time of possibly slithering into socialism to avoid allowing the green eyed monster of envy to influence our thoughts

regarding business. The Democrats have diligently done their best to paint the banks as evil villains making loans to

ignorant people who couldn't repay their loans. They never mention Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or that FNM was

congratulated by the Clinton National Home Ownership Strategy in 1994 for announcing 3 percent down payment

loans. Also, while the "huge" salaries and bonuses paid by banks to their officers have been widely trumpeted, how often have

you heard about the CEO of FNM, Franklin Raines' remuneration of over $90 million during his 6 year tenure?

Best Regards, Allen in Belton

[lwoolley]

Teri Mathis <waterwellness@yahoo.com>

Donna Garner forwarded your wonderful article. Our local newspaper lists births and recently, exactly half of the 26 listed births showed the mother's and father's last name as being different! I'd wager that the babies on that half of the list will be raised in a single parent home. Having done that myself -- with one child and NOT on the goverment dole -- it was unimaginably hard and harsh.

[lwoolley]

Greetings fellow discussers. (Does dis-cuss mean to first diss and then cuss?)

Anyway, I cannot disagree with the WSJ Opinion piece, but I can offer some perspective.

The chart below is from http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fed ... chart.html and uses data taken from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (part of the Commerce Department). I have the numbers in a combination of book and electronic form, but the web site does a great job of automating the information.



Indeed, the U.S. federal budget deficit has run up to a little over 10% of GDP. Additionally it is true that the Reagan deficits did not exceed 6%. There are a couple of very significant differences that are missing however. When Ronald Reagan took office the top federal marginal tax rate was 70%. Lowering taxes from there was completely in agreement with Dr. Arthur Laffer’s theory on tax revenue. He has written about the “Laffer Curve” and the “laffer Point” extensively. That point is the level of federal income taxation beyond which raising taxes decreases federal revenue. If the federal government has its tax rates set too low, then it gets low a low revenue stream, which in turn tends to lead to speculative activity by the more affluent. That in turn leads to financial market collapses that will tend to cycle over ten year periods. If the federal government tax rate is too high it will lead to widespread tax avoidance and evasion and depress the economy.

The Laffer point is that level of taxation which is “just right.” Prior to Ronald Reagan’s election the highest tax rate had been as high as 90% as we paid down the federal debt following WWII. Kennedy lowered the rate to 70%. It stayed there until Reagan reduced it to 50% in the Economic Recovery Act, but capital gains were maxed out at 40% of regular rates. Later, in 1986, the maximum rate was reduced to 28%, but capital gains were raised to 28% as well, and a host of tax deductions were eliminated. The net result of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was an increase in taxes, although it decreased taxes at the very top of the income scale. The tax increase hit the upper middle class hardest.

The max rate gradually worked its way back up to 39.6% under Bill Clinton but new tax deductions were added. George W. Bush lowered the taxes to a max rate of 25% and dropped capital gains and dividends to 15%, the lowest tax rates have been seen since the early 1930s.

Allowing tax rates to rise back to 39.6% for couples with adjusted gross income of more than $250,000 and individuals making over $200,000 was the pledge of Obama, and he still supports a return to pre-Bush tax levels for those above those numbers. For whatever it is worth, that still amounts to a lot less taxation than existed under the pre-Bush regime because it does not revert back for those making less than the cut-off numbers.

During the recession and post-recession years, President Reagan strongly supported the 50% max tax rate with capital gains effectively at 20%. I strongly suspect that if we had the Reagan tax rates today the budget deficit would be no larger than the ones seen under Reagan. Even Arthur Laffer has publically stated that the economy actually does better than it is currently with slightly higher tax rates.

I am no lover of taxes as I pay an amazingly large amount each year to the IRS, but the empirical facts are there. The federal government was taking in about 17% of GDP in the early 1980 whereas today it is taking in around 14%. If we do some really simple math and conclude that if the federal government was taking in 3% more of the GDP, as they were in the early Reagan years, then the deficit would be about 3% less of the GDP. That moves our 10% deficit down to 7%. Add in the fact that inflation was around 12% in the early 1980s compared with slight deflation now and that additional 1% is accounted for.

I know this is complex, but that is the way the real world works. Federal income tax rates are far, far lower today than in 1982. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP is actually not quite as high today as it was in 1982-83. The difference is not in spending, but in tax levels.

That is just the reality of the accounting. No opinion from me on whether or not taxes are too high or too low, just the facts.

Jeff

[lwoolley]

Hi Gang,

I will try to be pithy.

The point is that taxes are OK where they are today. It is what is about to happen in January with no action by Congress and the administration that is the issue. Stop the out of control spending and do not let the taxes increase beyond their current levels, and the fiscal part will work. The part that has the economy really gummed up is the administration and their willingness to change the rules and make others up as they go along. That has a lot of cash sitting on the sidelines waiting for the music to stop. It is the lack of certainty that is so scary. I think that the market will go up again some day, as Jeff predicts it will, and I believe that unemployment will come down in a few years. Obama will have to leave office before either of these happens to any great degree. Gridlock for the next two years, 2011 and 2012 will be an improvement, but January 20, 2013 is the beginning of the real recovery.

If the opposite of Pro is Con, what is the opposite of Progress?

Bill (BBIII)