Letters to the Editor (Continued)

On April 26, 2010 I posted a commnentary to my blog entitled Letters to the Editor in which I set forth a number of letters which I wrote. I concluded that post with the comment:

"In order to keep this post within a reasonable length, I will not set forth any more Letters to the Editor now, but instead will publish additional letters, in a future post.

This will serve to set forth the remaining Letters to the Editors which I have written this year. I very much hope that readers will let me have their views on any or as many as they care to. 

On January 3, 2010 I wrote a Letter to the Editor of the New York Times in response to an editorial entitled: "Super Bowl Censorship ."

"I find your editorial, “Super Bowl Censorship” (Editorial, January 30) puzzling to say the least. You make it appear that critics of the ad by 'Focus on the Family' (which is anti- choice) are seeking censorship, when what they are seeking is the opposite. The Superbowl has consistently refused ads advocating Choice. All that is wanted, nay demanded, is an even playing field. Either ads on both sides of the issue should be run or on neither side. One would think that the Times would support this as well."

It was not published.

On March 19, 2010 I wrote a Letter to the Editor of the Fort Lee Suburbanite in response to an editorial entitled: "Christie’s Cuts Just Keep Coming."

"As You Sow So Shall You Reap (your view “Christie’s cuts just keep coming”). The voters of NJ in their wisdom elected Christie governor and now they are reaping the consequences.

"As your editorial points out Christie is following his party’s dogma, of no new taxes, no matter what. That is all fine and good if there were no consequences. But as you point out, it is a deceptive bargain, because localities have bills to pay and services to provide, and cuts in state aid to localities proposed by Christie means that property taxes in localities will have to increase, or garbage collections will have to be reduced, or services to seniors will have to be cut, or food banks will have to shut down, or libraries will have to close, or schools will end up with larger classes, or other services will be cut, or a combination of the above.

"None of us like paying taxes, but unlike Christie we understand our obligations to our kids, to our seniors and to our poor, particularly during these hard times.

"Yes, the state has a budget deficit to close, which has been growing ever since Republican Governor Christie Whitman cut taxes on the wealthy by 30%, and those who expect this can now be dealt with without serious cuts in expenditures are unrealistic, but to balance the budget at the expense of localities, our educational system, and our most vulnerable citizens, without asking for any sacrifice from our wealthiest, is not only callous, it is a disservice to the future of our state and nation."

It was published the following Friday.

On March 27, 2010 I wrote a Letter to the Editor of the Fort Lee Suburbanite in response to an editorial entitled: "Don’t Lower The Cap So Sharply Yet.” as follows:

"Last week I praised your editorial criticizing Governor Christie’s cuts of aid to localities, but I was surprised and appalled at your editorial of March 26 entitled 'Don’t lower the cap so sharply yet.' This totally contradicts your editorial of the previous week, where you expressed concern about cuts in services including police, fire, garbage collection, schools, and libraries. Such cuts are to some extent mandated by the Governor’s proposed cuts in aid, but at least it would have left each locality the option of increasing taxes on its own citizens, if it wanted to maintain services at current levels.

"The idea that the state mandates how much each locality may tax its own citizens flies in the face of the principle of home rule, and it is the very antithesis of Democracy. I am sure that there may be many towns that would prefer to cut services rather than increase taxes, but that is a choice that should be for them to make, not for the state to mandate. Lowering the cap on how much taxes may be increased to make up for cuts in state aid does not make any sense, and your editorial’s plea not to 'lower the cap so sharply yet' ignores that it should not be lowered at all. As a matter of fact, caps should be abolished. Every community should have the right to determine for itself the level of services it wants, and the how much it is willing to pay for those services.

"The state’s function is to help the communities with aid, not to dictate how they should govern themselves.

"There is one positive thing the governor could do, and that is to impose a 25¢ tax on all plastic bags dispensed by stores. This would raise much needed revenue toward closing the deficit, and at the same time reduce the number of plastic bags that now pollute our landscape, overwhelm our garbage dumps, and kill untold numbers of marine animals."

It was published the following Friday.

On April 8, 2010 I wrote a Letter to the Editor of the Fort Lee Suburbanite reading as follows:

"Governor Christie’s state budget proposes the elimination of state funding for family planning services. Last year’s, budget allocated
over $7 million for reproductive health care services including routine gynecological exams; basic contraception; screening for high blood pressure, anemia and diabetes; breast and cervical cancer screening and education; screening and treatment for sexually transmitted infections (STIs); HIV testing and counseling; pre-pregnancy counseling and education; pregnancy testing and confirmation; and prenatal care and/or referral. State dollars are not used for abortion services.

"Gov. Christie’s budget cuts hurt women and costs the state money, Investing in women’s health is not only good policy, it saves money. Each dollar spent to provide family planning services saves an estimated $4 that would otherwise be spent in Medicaid-related costs. So, for the money saved by eliminating state funding for women’s health care, the state will pay at least $28 million more in Medicaid expenses.

"The best way to prevent unintended pregnancies and promote healthy families is to invest in family planning, and ensure that women and families have access to affordable, quality reproductive health care. Instead, Governor Christie wants to completely eliminate critical funds that reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. New Jersey already ranks 36th in public support for reproductive health care.

"Last year, New Jersey's family planning health centers provided:

* Reproductive and preventive health care to 126,903 women and 9461 men;

* Breast examinations to 70,506 women with 4039 referrals for further evaluation;

* Pap tests to 65,252 women;

* HIV tests to 27,386 women and men;

* 57,027 tests for Gonorrhea, 7727 tests for Syphilis and 66,035 tests for Chlamydia;

* Services to 97,129 women and men without health insurance.

"In 2009, New Jersey family planning health centers helped prevent: 39,782 unintended pregnancies, and 18,896 abortions. As a result, New Jersey saved well over $150,000,000 in one year."

It was published the following Friday.

On April 17, 2010 I wrote a Letter to the Editor of the Fort Lee Suburbanite reading as follows:

"Last Tuesday some of us went to the polls to vote for a school board and to approve or disapprove the school budget. This is supposed to be Democracy at work, but in fact it is a farce, and just another example of the bad way we govern ourselves in New Jersey.

"What percentage actually voted is not known at this point. But if the past is any guide, it is usually around 14 percent according to the Herald News of December 14, 2009. That hardly makes the result representative.

"And it is no wonder, since we know next to nothing about the candidates or the school budget we are supposed to approve or disapprove. In this years Fort Lee election we had four candidates for three slots, hardly what I would call a hotly contested election, and one of them isn’t even out of high school yet. Don’t we even have minimum qualifications for candidates? Do we even know whether members of the Board are paid or are volunteers?

"When we have elections on the federal or state level, the media gives us information on the candidates. We have editorial endorsements, have  debates, have party affiliations etc. We have at least a modicum of information to help us make our choices. But when it comes to local elections the paucity of information on the candidates and the issues makes intelligent voting all but impossible, and worse makes it possible for a small  determined group, often with a radical agenda, to seize control.

"It is time we stopped this farce and made the Board of Education responsible to the mayor, who we know at least a little about when we vote. More elections do not make for more responsible or more responsive governance. It does just the opposite."

On April 23, 2010 I wrote a Letter to the Editor of the Fort Lee Suburbanite reading as follows:

"In previous Letters to the Editor I pointed out that Governor Christie is following his party’s dogma, of no new state taxes, no matter what, but ignores the consequences of that policy. It of course means cuts in aid to localities. I pointed out, as in fact your own editorial did, that property taxes in localities would have to increase and vital services would have to be cut. Now some of the data becomes available. The state cut to Fort Lee schools will be 88%. As a result Fort Lee Public Schools have announced a 4.9% increase in our property tax and a cut in the school budget of 8.6%, and that does not include the increase in taxes by the town or the cut in town services.

"But figures are cold. What does it mean in jobs and services? The school system will phase out

*teaching French and Greek

*deferring purchase of textbooks and instructional technology

*Eliminating subsidies for band camp *Charging students for sports, clubs, plays, and music.

"It forces the layoff of much needed staff in our schools to the tune of 55 teaching and 27 custodial positions.

"They talk about generational theft. This is the worst kind of generational theft.

"While there is no room here for figures as they apply to Leonia and Edgewater they are equally dire, as is the impact on localities throughout the state.

"Property tax rebates are disappearing, which amounts to another tax hike, town taxes will go up, and we haven’t yet seen the cuts in services in police, health and other town services, which we rely on.

"But Christie couldn’t care less. As long as he protects the income running in the millions, and even in the billions of the fat cats who are his friends and enabler, he has accomplished his objectives."

It was published today.

Letters to the Editor

Since I do not confine myself to writing for my blog, but write Letters to the Editor as well, I think it worthwhile to share these letters with you from time to time, whether or not they are published. Thus on January 5, 2010 I wrote to the New York Times in response to an editorial entitled: "Yes, It Was Torture, and Illegal" as follows:

I am appalled at your Editorial, "Yes, It Was Torture, and Illegal" (New York Times, January 10) not because there is any question in my mind that torture is abhorrent and illegal, but because your editorial is deliberately misleading. It would be nice if the Times would inform its readers what case they have reference to. Failing that, however, it is inexcusable for the Times to misrepresent the rationale of that case, Nowhere does the decision, handed down in April of 2009 (nine months ago), hold that, "it was not 'clearly established' that torture was illegal". What the decision holds, is that, "at the time of their detention, neither the Supreme Court nor this court had ever held that aliens captured on foreign soil and detained beyond sovereign U.S. territory had any constitutional rights."

You have every right to differ with the conclusion of the court, but you do a disservice to journalism and to your readers when you choose to misrepresent. As the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, "you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts".

The letter was not published.

On January 23, 2010 I wrote a letter to my local newspaper the Fort Lee Suburbanite as follows:

“It is ironic that during the same week that the Supreme Court decided that there may be no limits on the manner or amount that corporations can spend on American elections, I find that my voice in the Suburbanite is substantially stilled by a new requirement that letters be limited to 450 words.

“While I understand that this comes about by the space and cost pressures that all newspapers are facing, it nevertheless, shows the lack of balance between the speech of those endowed with control of great wealth, and those like me.

“Unions and corporations will now be spending money that does not belong to those who decide how to spend it, since in the case of unions, leaders, and in the case of corporations, Boards of Directors, make that decision. In anticipation of the court’s decision I wrote a letter to your paper, which was published on October 9, 2009 under the heading, “The Best Government Money Can Buy.” It appears on my blog as 'Money and Politics'

“I must say that with this Supreme Court decision we have come full circle. The Supreme Court, in Bush v. Gore, decided on who our next President should be, that President then chose members of the court, who in turn stacked the deck in favor of Bush’s party. While the ruling also applies to unions there is no comparison between the amount of money available to unions and to corporations.

"But the worst part is not even the partisan aspects; it is the ability, already great for corporations, to reward or intimidate lawmakers, for an Exxon, for example, can say to any lawmaker, ‘let us pollute, and we shall reward you with heaps of cash in support of your next election’, or the reverse, ‘oppose us and we shall spare no money in bringing about your defeat.’ Unions can bring similar rewards or threats. The people lose! Money reigns! “Let us not forget the truism spoken by the campaign manager for William McKinley, during the 1906 election where McKinley’s campaign was financed primarily by corporations, ‘There are two things that are important in politics. 'The first is money and I can't remember the second.’

"It was that election which prompted passage of the Tillman Act in 1907 that first put limitations on corporate spending in elections.”

The letter was published, but subsequently the limit on Letters to the Editor was reduced to 300 words. When I first started publishing in the Suburbanite there was no limit on length.

On January 25, 2010 I again wrote a letter to the New York Times in response to an editorial entitled "Avoiding a Japanese Decade."

I wrote:

“I congratulate the New York Times for endorsing the Administration’s effort to regulate banks. (New York Times January 2, 2010 editorial). Hopefully, Republicans will not block it in the Senate, as they have blocked almost every other initiative by invoking the filibuster.

“I suggest, however, that until we have a cap on usurious interest, no regulations will be adequate to stop their reckless behavior, or stop their rip-off of the American public. Banks now borrow from consumers at below 2%, and charge them for loans via credit cards at 20% or more. They then extrapolate a one-day loan into a month interest (which is what happens when a payment is late by one day) and add late and other fees, causing the actual interest to be well over 100%. In addition
because of the huge profits resulting, the banks are encouraged to lend recklessly. No regulation short of this will be effective.”

It was not published.

On January  31, 2010 I again wrote to the New York Times in response to an Op-Ed piece by Charles M. Blow entitled: "Lost in Translation."

I wrote:

"I find Mr. Blow’s Op-Ed piece “Lost in Translation” (New York Times, January 30) shocking.

"The ignorance of the American electorate is appalling.

"But what is even more appalling is that he blames this ignorance on our President, who it has been popular, lately, to blame for everything.

"Let Mr. Blow and his fellow journalists, pundits and the media in general look to themselves for the failure. Reading their many thousands of words, whether in print or by word of mouth, one would be hard put to find any attempt to educate the public on the most vital facts relating to the political landscape. The 'liberal' organizations with their innumerable e-mails have been no more informative.

In order to keep this post within a reasonable length, I will not set forth any more Letters to the Editor now, but instead will publish additional letters, in a future post.

The More Things Change; The More They Are The Same

I urge you to read the following:

No, it is not about President Obama, but it easily could be.

"His nomination, his campaign, his election had meant many things to many people; now they waited, and many would find themselves disappointed in that first year. He was the first of a new kind of media candidate flashed daily into our consciousness by television during the campaign, and as such he had managed to stir the aspirations and excited millions of people. It had all been deliberately done; he had understood television and used it well, knowing that it was his medium, but it was done at a price. Millions of people watching this driving, handsome young man believed that he could change things, move. things, that their personal problems would somehow be different, lighter, easier with his election. As the President was faced with that great gap of any modern politician, but perhaps greatest in contemporary America: the gap between the new unbelievable velocity of modern life which can send information and images hurtling through the air onto the television screen, exciting desires and appetites, changing mores almost overnight, and the slowness of traditional governmental institutions produced by ideas and laws of another era, bound in normal bureaucratic red tape and traditional seniority. After all, although he had said in his campaign that he wanted to get America moving again, he had not mentioned that the people must allow for the conservatism of the Senate; he had implied that he could do it, it would move. In many ways he was as modern and contemporary as an American politician can be, more practiced at the new means of campaigning than any other major figure (he was frankly bored by the traditional power struggles of the Senate; it was not where the action was, or at least the action he sought). So, elected, he was charged with action against a bureaucracy and a Congress which regarded him and his programs with suspicion, the suspicion varying in direct proportion to the freshness and progressiveness of his ideas. In his first major struggle, a classic conflict of the two forces, the President finally won. But his victory was more Pyrrhic than anything else; it exposed the essential weakness of his legislative position, the divisions in his party, and as such, enemies on the Hill would feel encouraged in their opposition. The lesson, not immediately discernible in the early part of the decade but increasingly important as Americans came to terms with the complexity of their society, was that it was easier to stir the new America by media than it was to tackle institutions which reflected vested interests and existing compromises of the old order. In a new, modern, industrial, demographically young society, this was symbolized by nothing so much as congressional control by very old men from small Southern towns, many of them already deeply committed, personally and financially, to existing interests; to a large degree they were the enemies of the very people who had elected him. He was caught in that particular bind.

…that the most' surprising thing about coming to office was that everything was just as bad as they had said in the campaign."

The above quotation, and I have taken the liberty of making some very few deletions, and even fewer revisions, to keep it from being obviously about John Kennedy, is excerpted from Chapter V of "The Best and the Brightest" by David Halberstam written in 1969 and it refers to the first year of the Kennedy Administration, or the year 1961 half a century ago.

For those who would like to read the unchanged version, though with some verbiage deleted, can find it here.

Those who want to read it unexpurgated will find the quote here.

The Politics of the Big Lie

Leaders of the Republican Party are bragging that more Americans are against the Health Reform legislation than are for it and while this is true they cannot resist exaggerating even when polls are in their favor.

Thus Senator Jim DeMint appearing on Face the Nation on March 28 says “Over sixty percent of Americans still want Republicans to fight to repeal this.” Bob Schiefer to his credit immediately corrects this saying, “a new poll…does not suggest that a majority of Americans are against this…It says forty-six percent support this, fifty percent oppose it.”

But before the program is over so many out-and-out lies are told that with all good intentions Schiefer cannot keep correcting the falsehoods.

It isn’t 50% who are against this bill. It is 50% who are against a bill (now a law) characterized by endless and baseless lies. If I believed the lies, as many Americans apparently do, I would be against the law as well. But most people assume that their leaders would not tell out and out lies. They assume that there must be at least some truth to what they say. Unfortunately, that is not the case. What is being circulated are baseless lies, without a shred of truth to most of them. I have spend a great deal of time and effort documenting many of these lies and rather than try to repeat myself refer the reader to earlier writings on this subject - Health Insurance Reform, Health Insurance Reform - Lies and Damned Lies, Health Reform - Reality, Health Care Reform – Facts and Fiction, Republican Talking Points on Health Care, Continuing the Health Care debate and Lying pays off!!!!! Smears succeed!!!! Obstructionism is rewarded!!!!.

But I return to this subject because I keep running into ever greater whoppers. I thought I had heard the worst of them when Sarah Palin claimed “Death Panels” without any basis whatsoever, and hoped that there were some Republicans who were responsible enough to repudiate it. But to my great disappointment not one Republican denounced it or distanced him/herself from it, and most even tried to justify it. What kind of a Party is it that would be so irresponsible?

Last Sunday I listened to the Sunday interviews and if anything the lies have gotten bigger, the claims more hysterical. The claim by Sen. DeMint mentioned above was minor compared to what followed in the form of wild claims of Rep. Michele Bachmann.

I reproduce part of the transcript from that interview with my comments in bold letters:

“Congresswoman--and we used a little clip of what you said in the beginning of this--you said last week that health care reform was dangerous, and-- and you equated it with tyranny. Do you really mean that?"

REPRESENTATIVE MICHELE BACHMANN (R-Minnesota): "I do, because now we have the federal government, Bob, taking over ownership or control of fifty-one percent of the American economy. This is stunning. Prior to September of 2008, one hundred percent of the private economy was private."

            I will return to the claim that the government has taken over 51% of the economy. At this point let me address the claim that prior to “September 2008 one hundred percent of the private economy was private.” Has she forgotten that the government ran & runs the military, the US Postal Service, Social Security, Medicare, etc. etc. But then I realize that she is right. She is playing three cards Monte. It was 100% of the “private economy was private.” But 100% of the “private” economy will always be private by definition.

So we have to look at the reference to 51% of the American economy which the government has taken control of since 9/08. But allow me to expand on this.

           "Today, the federal government has taken either direct ownership or control of banks, the largest insurance company in the United States, AIG, Freddie and Fannie."

            The only part of this that is true is that the government has taken control of Freddie and Fannie, which are relatively small companies. They loaned money to the other entities mentioned to keep them from going under and took Preferred, non-voting stock as surety, but have neither ownership nor control. This is a barefaced lie!

           "The federal government now owns, Bob, over fifty percent of all home mortgages..."

Since Freddie and Fannie own many mortgages, the government owns those mortgages, but it is nowhere near 50%. This is a barefaced lie!

"Now, the direct student loan industry..."

            The government didn’t take it over. It was always the government that was making the loans since the banks wouldn’t. Under the old system the banks acted as a middleman and took a large cut. The middleman has been eliminated with a substantial saving to the US taxpayer. This is a barefaced lie!

           "...Chrysler, GM. And with the health care industry that’s an additional eighteen percent of the private economy…"

            The government didn’t take any of these over. Chrysler and GM were both given loans and are not owned by the government and the health insurance reform did not take over the health care industry. The health insurance companies remain private but are now subject to certain regulations just as we regulate and have always regulated numerous industries. The rest of the health care industry i.e. doctors and hospitals are not even regulated. This is a barefaced lie!

"Remember, when President Obama told Congress you have to pass my trillion-dollar bailout or we could get unemployment as high as eight percent..."

            Again not true! What most economists and the Obama Administration said was that we faced a potential repeat of 1929 when unemployment went above 37% and that with the measures taken they hoped to keep unemployment under 8%. They were a little too optimistic, because they only succeeded in keeping it from going substantially above 10%, though it has now dropped below 10%.

"President Obama’s own numbers, his own economic advisor, Christina Romer, said that Obamacare..."

(it isn’t Obamacare - Congress drafted the legislation much to the chagrin of many Democrats who felt the President should have drafted it for them.) 

 "...could cost the economy five and a half million jobs lost. "

Christina Romer did not say anything of the sort & health care reform could create millions of jobs over the next ten years, another barefaced lie without the slightest basis for it!

BOB SCHIEFFER: "… Sarah Palin famously said last week that it is not time for Republicans to retreat. It is time to reload. Now, she has since modified that and said she wasn’t talking about guns. She was talking about getting out there and using the vote. Do you think Sarah Palin has overstated it here?"

            The fact is that Palin not only talked about reloading she published a map with gun sights “one for each of the Democrats targeted this year by her political action committee SarahPAC. Three of the gun sights, those where incumbent Democrats have already announced their retirement, are colored red.” 

While I am sure Bachman wouldn’t agree, I urge the Attorney General to impanel a grand jury and seek an indictment against Palin for incitement to commit murder.            

   Bachman continued:

“And again, the New England Journal of Medicine released a survey the week that President Obama signed Obamacare stating that the-- ov--over thirty percent of American physicians--would leave the profession if the government took over health care. That’s very serious going forward."

            It would indeed be serious, if true, but it is a lie! And this one is worse than all the others if that were possible, for this one is the result of a plan to give the appearance of truth to this lie. The story originated with CNS News, which Source Watch describes as “a subsidiary of the conservative news monitoring group the Media Research Center (MRC). Originally calling itself the "Conservative News Service," CNS changed its name to Cybercast in 2000. CNS posted an article on their website under the headline: “Nearly One-Third of Doctors Could Leave Medicine if Health-Care Reform Bill Passes, According to Survey Reported in New England Journal of Medicine” and then gave details of a purported article in the New England Journal of Medicine. This was given further credence by Fox & Friends where co-host Brian Kilmeade said: "The New England Journal of Medicine has published a report and did a survey, and they said the impact of reform on primary care physicians, 46 percent, they say, feel reform will force them out or make them want to leave medicine." But the New England Journal in a statement said that it neither conducted nor published the "survey." On their website they posted the following:

“Recruiting Physicians Today is a free advertiser newsletter published by the Worldwide Advertising Sales and Marketing Department in the publishing division of the Massachusetts Medical Society. Each issue of the newsletter features research and content produced by physician recruiting firms and other independent groups involved in physician employment."

“On December 17, 2009 The Medicus Firm, a national physician search firm based in Dallas and Atlanta, published the results of a survey they conducted with 1,000 physicians regarding their attitudes toward health reform. To read their survey results at The Medicus Firm website, click here."

“The opinions expressed in the article linked to above represent those of The Medicus Firm only. That article does not represent the opinions of the New England Journal of Medicine or the Massachusetts Medical Society.”

(Emphasis added)

Any legislation has a downside to it. Any legislation can be opposed or criticized on legitimate and valid grounds. Why don’t Republicans make such arguments? One can only surmise that they are not interested in legitimate debate. They want to incite, and reasoned debate does not provoke the kind of emotional demonstrations, which they rely on to advance their agenda.

We all have an obligation to set the record straight. These lies are not to be tolerated. They are to be denounced. Where are the great newscasters of yore, like Ed Morrow, to take on the liars and the provocateurs?

But what is even worse is that the media encourages such outrageous and inflammatory behavior, for why is Bachman getting all this publicity? Why is she on "Face the Nation"? She has no leadership position in the Congress. She is just one of 435 members of Congress, representing one small district in Minnesota. She get all this exposure because she makes outrageous statements. The media rewards this. Thus the media becomes an accomplice and a promoter of the lies and the outrageous. It is the way to get the media to make them into celebrities.