Our Planet - It Is The Only One We Have

I have stated before, and herby restate, that because of a lack of expressed interest in my postings on my blog I have ceased writing for that venue, until and unless I receive a reasonable number of responses indicating an interest in my continuing. 

However, since I continue to write for other venues from time to time, I will continue to post those on my blog.

On April 21, I wrote a Letter to the Editor of the Record (The Fort Lee Suburbanite no longer appears to be interested in publishing Letters to the Editor). It was published in the April 23, 2014 edition.

The letter appeared under the Headline “Stop Using Plastic Bags” and reads as follows:

I find it appalling to find that most people take their purchases in plastic bags, rather then using reusable canvas bags. It appears they mean well, because every merchant offers reusable canvas bags and many buy them. But it appears that most people seem content with having bought such bags, even though they then fail to use them.

Why using reusable canvas bags is so is hard is difficult to contemplate. Most people use their cars when doing their shopping and it is the easiest thing in the world to keep some canvas bags in the car and take them with them when they shop. That is what I do.

Do they not realize what enormous damage they are doing to our environment? What happens to these hundreds, indeed thousands, and most likely millions of these bags? According to National Geographic there are “somewhere between 500 billion and a trillion plastic bags … consumed worldwide each year”. We see them hanging from trees where they pollute our visual environment. But worse they end up in our landfills, where unlike other garbage they do not decompose and remain there unto eternity. And still worse they end up in our streams and in our oceans where dolphins, and other creatures of the sea get tangled in them, or imbibe them and die a horrible death.

National Geographic also informs us that “Plastic bag litter has become such an environmental nuisance and eyesore that Ireland, Taiwan, South Africa, Australia, and Bangladesh have heavily taxed the totes or banned their use outright. Several other regions, including England and some U.S. cities, are considering similar actions.”

It is time for our state and/or our nation to do the same.

Comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to, but will only be published at my discretion.

Government at its Worst and at its Best

I have said heretofore that I am no longer willing to take the time to write for my blog because my audience is at best unresponsive and at worst non-existent.

However, I have also decided that what I have written for other venues should also see the light of day on my blog. So here goes!

Christiegate

Living in the town that is the subject of this scandal it has been covered rather well by our local newspaper. One of the articles prompted me to write a Letter to the Editor, as follows:

The continuing “Bridgegate Scandal” (Suburbanite January 17, 2014) can only remind us of the original scandal after which all other scandals have been named. While the two are different in many ways, they have some important features in common.  

In both cases the scandal broke right after the incumbent won re-election by an overwhelming majority. In both cases the incumbent claimed ignorance, and was quick to fire underlings.  

Nixon declared, “I am not a crook!” Christie declared: “I am not a bully”.  

In both cases the facts kept developing. In the case of Christie they too are just developing, with the mayor off Jersey City coming forth with how his refusal to endorse Christie led to “purposeful stalling of a pension reform bill that would have benefited his city", and the mayor of Hoboken charging that Christie withheld federal storm relief funds from her city to punish her.  

Whether Christie knew the details of what his aids were doing is irrelevant. As anyone who has worked in either the private or the public sector knows, underlings know and act upon what they perceive the boss wants. Clearly this is what they understood the boss wanted.  

Punishing a political adversary is part of the political game, but punishing the citizens of a town for the perceived sins of its elected official is beyond the pale. It is time for Governor Christie to take responsibility and resign. Failing that, serious consideration to impeachment is in order.

This appeared directly under a cartoon on the subject, inexorably linking the two, which I reproduce here:

This represents government at its worst!

On the other hand the importance of government at its best is not to be overlooked, as the New York Times article entitled “Innovation,Optimism And Jobs” seemed to do, prompting me to write a Letter to the Editor, which was not published. The letter follows:

To the Editor:

 Joe Nocera’s column “Innovation, Optimism And Jobs" is misleading, not by commission, but by omission, or at least in emphasis. 

 In discussing technological change and whether it will help or hinder job creation, he barely touches upon the vital role that government plays. While, in talking about past technological innovation, he does mention, “governmental change:” and that “Factories used children as workers, until governments passed child labor laws” and that “free education became the law of the land” but he fails to point out what a vital role government played. 

 The fact is that innovation did wipe out an enormous number of jobs. Government kept such dwindling jobs from devastating huge swath of the population by forcing job sharing. People used to work eighty hours a week and more, but as fewer workers were needed government forced the fewer jobs to be widely shared, not only by eliminating child labor, but by passing laws limiting the number of hours to be worked to 40 hours and mandating extra compensation for hours above that, while at the same time making sure that lower paid workers would not have their income cut as their hours dwindled, by setting a floor to how much compensation could be reduced, i.e. the minimum wage. 

 If we are to meet the challenge from the new efficiencies, we must once again reduce the number of hours worked, follow through on free education by making college free, and in general improve our educational system by investing in our human capital. 

 Earlier innovation would not have benefited the broader population without government intervention, and neither will the present one.

Comments, Corrections and/or Questions are welcome.

I am an American

I recently submitted the following Letter to the Editor to my local newspaper the Fort Lee Suburbanite. I would like to share it with my readers. The letter follows:

I live in the Colony in Fort Lee. The other day a woman asked me in the elevator whom I planned to vote for. I responded Obama, and asked and you? She said, “I don’t know – I didn’t like Obama’s refusal to meet with Netanyahu.” Then we parted.

Here is my response to this woman and others who may have similar doubts.

As an American, a Jew, a Holocaust survivor, A Zionist descended from Zionists, but above all an American, I do not believe that the head of any country has the right to summon the President of the United States. He can petition the President for a meeting, and if it fits into the President's schedule, and it is in the mutual interests of the parties, a meeting can be arranged. That applies to all foreign heads of state. The Prime Minister of Israel is not, nor should he be, an exception.

But Netanyahu has gone out of his way to violate every rule of diplomatic behavior. In my view he has been a disaster for Israel. Since any Letter to the Editor has to be short I commend readers to "Peter Beinart on Netanyahu’s Bullying Act" from The Daily Beast.

That article relates in some detail Netanyahu’s long history of meddling in American politics, so much so that the Republican Secretary of State James Baker briefly had him banned from the State Department. But beyond that, and I quote from the article, “Netanyahu has been brazenly intervening in American politics—often with an eye to screwing Democratic presidents.”

But let us also not forget Netanyahu’s role in inciting so vehemently against the sainted assassinated Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, that many accused him of responsibility for that assassination.

But now he has the gall to come to the US and use our airwaves to try to dictate American foreign policy. Appearing on US Television, Netanyahu declared: “Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.” I agree with the Prime Minster that no one has a right to place a “Red Light” before Israel. But, in fact no one has!!!

Israel’s Defense Minster, Ehud Barak has said: "Israel retains its right to make sovereign decisions and the United States respects that."

The opposition comes from within Israel where Meir Dagan, former Mossad Chief, said on 60 Minutes that an “Attack On Iran is the 'Stupidest Idea' He's Ever Heard.”

The attempt by any country to dictate American policy, particularly on issues of war and peace must be rejected by all Americans.

Note: Links to URLs were not part of the Letter to the Editor.

It is necessary to add that according to Israel's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defense Ehud Barak, the Obama White House has been the most supportive administration throughout the two countries' diplomatic relations on matters of Israeli security. See here, here and here.

The Culture Wars Resume

Just when everybody thought this election would be about the economy it has become a resumption of the Culture Wars.

Democrats have seized upon the issue of birth control as an “Attack on Women” and it may be of greater concern to women than to men, but men too are effected by any attempt to restrict birth control. Whether in the married state or absent matrimony, men are very much concerned about impregnating a woman, whether she is a wife, or a girl friend. In the married state additional unwanted children place just as much of an economic burden on the husband as on the wife and if single, what man wants to be responsible for an offspring which was neither intended nor desired.

To be sure a female is more immediately effected, since it is her body that carries the fetus, but to pretend that only women are effected is to blind oneself to reality.

But what has suddenly brought this to the fore. The media has made it appear that the ruling by the Obama Administration requiring all insurance policies to cover birth control is strictly about insurance coverage, and Republicans want it to appear as though it were a battle over freedom of religion. But it is neither! 


The issue was brought to the fore when Komen decided to defund Planned Parenthood. But that simply brought it above the radar. As I pointed out in my post "Contraception, Abortion and Komen," it was as early as last year that the “House GOP voted to zero out the entire $317,000,000 Title X family planning budget and in New Jersey, Planned Parenthood was completely defunded to the tune of  $7.4 million. More recently on March 5, 2012, Newsweek reported that Texas was defunding Planned Parenthood. (The New York Times reported the same thing two days later.)

In none of these cases was there even a pretense that religion was an issue. And besides since when can religion override public policy. Would Rick Santorum or even Mitt Romney take issue with the Supreme Court when it ruled as long ago as 1878 in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. (8 Otto.) 145 that members of the Mormon religion could not claim exemption on religious grounds from the prohibition against polygamy, holding that “the Free Exercise Clause … protect(s) religious beliefs, not religious practices that run counter to neutrally enforced … laws.”

Would anyone argue that a physician, who is a Christian Scientist, can withhold medical care because it is against his religion, and for obvious reasons the argument that a pharmacist can refuse to dispense birth control pills on religious grounds has also been soundly rejected.

But the fundamentalists in the Republican Party (and I prefer to call them Fundamentalists rather then Evangelicals, because there are many Evangelicals who do not have Fundamentalist beliefs—Jimmy Carter it should be remembered is a born again Christian) want to impose their believes on the rest of us, and work toward a Christian theocracy.

They are now so dominant in the Republican Party that the Party in the Senate voted almost unanimously (Olympia Snow dissented) for the Blunt amendment, which according to the Washington Post “would have allowed not only religious groups but any employer with moral objections to opt out of the coverage requirement. And it would have allowed such employers to do so in the case of not only contraception but any health service required by the 2010 health-care law.”

Romney when asked about his position and worried about his general election chances first offered:

“I'm not for the bill, but look, the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a woman, a husband and a wife, I'm not going there.”

But when attacked by Santorum quickly fell in line with a spokesperson explaining:

“Regarding the Blunt bill, the way the question was asked was confusing. Governor Romney supports the Blunt Bill because he believes in a conscience exemption in health care for religious institutions and people of faith...”

And when Rush Limbaugh attacked a Georgetown University student who supported a requirement for health insurance to cover birth control, calling her a “slut” who “wants to be paid to have sex… (and that) she was “having so much sex, it’s amazing she can still walk”; and (that) she was “having sex so frequently that she can’t afford all the birth-control pills that she needs.” Romney was so outraged that he said: 

“It's not the language I would have used." 

The Republican House speaker through a spokesperson expressed his outrage with 

“The use of those words was inappropriate.” 

George Will, the outspoken Republican intellectual, commented:

“Boehner comes out and says Rush’s language was inappropriate. Using the salad fork for your entrée, that’s inappropriate. Not this stuff…and it was depressing because what it indicates is that the Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh. They want to bomb Iran, but they’re afraid of Rush Limbaugh.”

But just possibly the Republican dilemma can be summarized by a letter that appeared in my local Newspaper, the Fort Lee Suburbanite:

An issue has been created where none existed. This takes the spotlight off of the economy, price of gas and unemployment. Birth control has never been illegal or unavailable. That is why this is a "non-issue." The powers that be are trying to blur the lines between abortion (infanticide) and birth control.

Because this is a contentious topic, women are being fed like sheep by the "wise" wolves. They do this under the guise of "women's rights." Birth control is a private matter. If your religion forbids it… it is between you, your conscience and God ... not you and the President of the United States or Congress. We follow our consciences everyday to do good and evil.

Why is that "cafeteria Catholics" do not make an issue of the other teachings of the Church? Yet birth control sends them into frenzy. We break the Commandments everyday. When the clerk at the supermarket charges you for red cabbage (at 29¢ a pound) instead of radicchio (at $4.99 a pound) do you tell her she made a mistake? No? That is stealing. Are you honest when filing your taxes? No? Mute point! We are all sinners. Look deeply and you will find this to be true, whether you gossip and ruin someone's reputation or tell a lie - look at those who govern. Too bad the Pinocchio factor doesn't work or small noses would be quite scarce in Washington D.C.

Let us all stop this chest thumping and get on with the issues that are important to the future of the United States.

To which I responded with the following Letter to the Editor:

Facts can be inconvenient! 

                     
Once again, as so many times in the past, I find myself writing in response to a Letter to the Editor, that treats facts as just an inconvenience. Get Back to Important Issues, which appeared in your March 2 edition, does that in spades. 

                     
The writer asserts, “Birth control has never been illegal or unavailable.” If that were true the Supreme Court would not have had to strike down a Connecticut law, in Griswold v. Connecticut, that did exactly that. As to availability, that has been, and continues to be a problem for disadvantaged women to this day. That is why Planned Parenthood is so important. Planned Parenthood spends a $1 billion a year providing services to poor and middle class women throughout the US, many of whom are married, but cannot afford the expense of additional children, or have other gynecological needs. 

                  
But what we are witnessing is a concerted war on contraception through defunding. Last year, the House GOP voted to zero out the entire $317,000,000 Title X family planning budget. Fortunately the Democratic Senate refused to go along. New Jersey under the leadership of our Governor, Chris Christie, defunded Planned Parenthood completely to the tune of  $7.4 million. Our President, conscious of the crucial need to provide gynecological services to all women, has made such services available by providing that they be covered in all health insurance policies. 

                     
It is definitely not a non-issue. 

                        

But the letter writer goes further and describes abortion as infanticide. If it were infanticide it would be murder and it would make one third of all women in the US, who have had at least one abortion in their lives, into murderers. That was never the law even before the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which empowered women to have control over their own bodies. 

                        

What is at stake is the right of people in general, and women in particular, to be free of the dictates of their government, and not to have the religious views of others imposed upon them. This is the essence of liberty, and the separation of church and state. It is the essence of our Bill of Rights. 

                        

It is definitely not a non-issue.

Comments are welcome and will be distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.

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.

Philosophical And Life Experiences In The Shaping Of Supreme Court Views

In my last commentqry entitled, “Judges Do More Than ‘Call Balls And Strikes’”  which I posted on my blog July 13, I pointed out the complexity of dealing with vague language in the Constitution and also pointed out that the concept of originalism is nothing but obfuscation, and that in reality no judge follows such a doctrine nor could they do so, without bringing our whole system of government to its knees.

I do not, however want to give the impression that it follows that any of the judges, be they Right or Left, and there is no longer a true center, simply make up the law to suit their own predilections. Thus in my essay, entitled, “The Supreme Court - Consequences As New Appointees Shift Its Balance” which I wrote in October of 2005 and which can be found in full here, I quoted a number of Justices on the subject of deciding cases in ways which as a matter of policy they disapproved of, e.g. Justice Stevens, in referring to some conclusions he had reached, explained that he believed that as a matter of policy that the outcomes were: "unwise…. (but) I was convinced that the law compelled a result that I would have opposed if I were a legislator…”

But that does not mean that judges are not influenced in reaching their conclusion by their political philosophy and their background.

The Ledbetter case, which involved interpretation of a law passed by Congress rather than the Constitution is a case in point. The law provided that women may not be paid less than men for equal work.

After working for Goodyear for almost 20 years Lilly Ledbetter was by far the lowest-paid employee in her position. She proved that this disparity was due to sex discrimination, and a federal district court in Alabama found Goodyear liable. On appeal, Goodyear countered it hadn't discriminated against Ledbetter—recently. (Emphasis added) Title VII, of the federal law requires suit to be filed within 180 days "after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred." In essence, Goodyear argued that the discriminatory decision it made about Ledbetter's pay were made long ago and that since pay raises were a percentage of previous pay, the pay discrepancy kept getting larger and larger. But they argued that except for the first deliberate discriminatory act, the later smaller raises were not the result of any gender discrimination, but simply the result of the much earlier act. Ledbetter's low salary might have merely reflected her earlier, discriminatorily low pay, rather than more recent pay increases.

The Supreme Court in a 5 to 4 decision held that the suit was not filed within the required 180 days and dismissed the suit. The decision turned on the interpretation of the meaning of “unlawful employment practice.” The minority of four held that the intent is not controlling-it is the effect of the decision that controls, and since later smaller pay increases had the effect of sex discrimination, the suit was filed in time. Jeffrey Toobin in his book on the Supreme Court, “The Nine” points out at page. 330 that “for years, the court said that if a women sued within 180 days of her last offending paycheck,” she is entitled to recover for the entire period. But now with a change in the courts personnel the view was different. Alito had replaced O’Connor. Fortunately, since this involved an act of Congress, that body was able to amend the law to make its meaning so clear that even the Supreme Court could no longer misunderstand its intent.

Now I don’t suggest that the Right wing justices did not intend to follow the law, but their philosophy, their backgrounds, were not sympathetic to the objective of the law passed by Congress, and so they interpreted it narrowly. The four liberal justices, and the departed O’Connor, showed their sympathy by interpreting it broadly. They all felt that they had the correct interpretation, but they could not and cannot escape their biases, or their background. In the end it is what instructs them.

The same is true in interpreting the Constitution. In interpreting Roe v. Wade the court had set a standard (actually O’Connor had) that a law restricting abortions must not place an undue burden on women. Pennsylvania had passed a law putting various restrictions on the right of a woman to an abortion including one that she must notify her husband before having one. Alito, then on the Court of Appeals, dissented from the majority on the court finding this to be a reasonable burden. When the case reached the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, O’Connor was livid over Alito’s view. Not only was such a requirement an undue burden under Roe, but it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The fact that she was a woman clearly was not an insignificant factor in her strong reaction. She declared, “Women do not lose their Constitutional protected liberty when they marry.”

If we look at the decisions it becomes obvious that judges who hold a high regard for the protection from unreasonable searches and seizures will find more situations as unreasonable than those who don’t; those who put a high value on free speech will interpret that broadly, while those who hold the right to use ones wealth to influence elections will have a view that reflects this world view. 

It is for that reason that the court functions best when it has on it justices with different backgrounds and philosophies. A woman often will see things differently from a man. Someone who has had to struggle may see things differently from one who was born with a silver spoon in their mouth.
  
For that reason Shell Haas and Gary Schwartz had it wrong when they wrote in the Suburbanite a few weeks ago that ethnicity (and presumable gender) has no place in choosing a justice for the court. Did they or their predecessors in this type of thinking express a concern when during the first 178 years of the court every justice was a white man. We did not have a justice of another color until 1967 and did not have a woman until 1981. No one wants to bar white men from serving on the court, but it is strange that people object at the idea that at this late date we might want to see some with other backgrounds and experiences, such as Justice Marshal, or Justice O’Connor who upon graduating from law school was offered a job as a secretary in a law firm. Even now, until Justice Souter resigned, we had seven white men out of nine on the court. Do Haas and Schwarz think that these seven white men had some special qualification that those of another ethnicity, gender, or race do not possess?

I reproduce the letters from Haas and Schwartz below:

"To the Editor:
In the editorial “ Supreme Court nomination is a win for all” there was no mention of judicial qualifications. With decisions overturned, Ms. Sotomayor’s really does not exemplify the cream of the crop of potential candidates. She is not the first Hispanic to be named for the court. The Honorable Justice Cardozo has that distinction. It is wonderful to pursue the American dream, but as Martin Luther King Jr. put it, it is by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin. He should have added “not by their ethnicity either.” No one is excluded by society in America today, except those individuals and groups that desire not to be included. We must think of ourselves as Americans, not hyphenated Americans. America has always had ethnic diversity, but that diversity merged with the willingness to subvert that pride to a greater pride- that of being an American.
Shel Haas

"To the Editor:
A Supreme Court nomination is win for all. I wonder, forgive me but somehow I believe it’s wrong to pick a judge because of ethnic background. I mean Justice (whatever that is) should be blind. Race and religion that should be irrelevant for a judge. No, I think judges should be judged on their judgement, nothing else. And of course, it’s important for people to believe Judges are fair and race card muddies up that perception.
Gary Schwartz"

Next time I will discuss the much-maligned Ricci (aka the firemen’s) case.

Taking Time Off

As most of you know, I have been using the Letters to the Editor pages of my local newspaper, the Fort Lee Suburbanite, to gain a larger audience then I would have if I limited myself to only those who are on my e-mail distribution list, or read and/or subscribe to my blog. 

I have now decided to take some time off from these endeavors and have written a Letter to the Editor which I reproduce below:

Much to my regret I must take leave for a while. My letters have taken an inordinate amount of time because I never write without careful and extensive research, for I want to do more than acquaint your readers with my views. I want my letters to be informative and educational because there are too many myth promulgated, too many lies told, too many distortions distributed,  and the media is amiss in not making sure that the record is corrected. Too often they become conveyers of that which they should denounce.

In taking temporary leave of your pages, I want to thank you for allowing my views and the underlying facts to see the light of day. At the same time I want to thank you for printing the views of my critics, because it is only through a lively debate that the reader can judge where the true public interest lies.

In taking this leave I want your readers to be aware that they can find more of my analysis, as well as contrary views, on my blog and they can also e-mail me.

I will respond to any communications received.

Rest assured, I will be back for I have too strong an abiding interest in public affairs to resist for long setting the record straight. 

My personal history as one who escaped Nazi oppression, found a haven in these United States, and had an opportunity to rise from poverty through a college which was tuition free (alas no college any longer offers this opportunity) makes me determined to make my voice heard so that others might not be denied the opportunities I had.

Since truth is the mightiest of the mighty, I seek to find truth in the study of history and to share my insights with 
as many as I can.

Thank you again for the opportunity you have made available to me.

Debating In My Local Newspaper

I refer to my commentary entitled: "The Bankruptcy Bill and Arlen Specter" which can be found here.

I published this commentary in my local newspaper, the Fort Lee Suburbanite, and it prompted a response from a Mr. Chiu, who has been a frequent contrarian of my opinions.

I quote his letter in full below along with my rebuttal. I think the exchange speaks for itself and accordingly I will not burden the reader with any further comments.

"I agree with Emil Scheller that it's unfair for corporations to have the right to abuse bankruptcy laws while individuals don't. Unfortunately, a few bad individual apples spoiled everything for ordinary people. Some deliberately ran up credit card debts and simply declared bankruptcy later on. It was common knowledge that one's bad credit record would be wiped clean after 7 years and credit card companies would again be mailing offers. No more.

"Of course, Scheller blames Republicans for the passage of legislation changing the bankruptcy laws. He states that 14 Senate Democrats also voted in favor of the bill, which passed 7425. I just checked on Google: 19 Democrats voted for the bill. 25 Democrats voted against the bill. There was one abstention. Whatever the case, Democrats could have filibustered to block the bill if they felt strongly enough about it. Could such inaction have had anything to do with campaign contributions sullying our political process? Ideally, Congress would pass similar legislation to crack down on corporate abuse of bankruptcy laws.

"Scheller justifies his use of the term "right-wing" by resurrecting his old straw man argument that conservatives want to undo the New Deal and Great Society. In fact, he gleefully uses his explanation as an excuse to throw out the word "reactionary" against conservatives. Now everyone knows full well that Big Government is so much a part of our lives that it would be impossible to repeal any part of the New Deal or Great Society, if even we wanted to. There's no going back. For example, we all have grandparents (and even parents) on Social Security. Or we may be beneficiaries of some social program or subsidy. In fact, when Republicans controlled Congress, they even increased the size of government. I recall one occasion in which the Bush administration wanted to slightly trim some social programs. Republican congressmen angrily refused to cut programs as they wanted to protect their poor constituents. No one has the heart to cut anything. Government just grows and grows. There are no reactionaries.

So pejorative terms like "right-wing" have no place in polite discourse. I avoid the use of terms like "Left-wing" or "Leftist" because those can also be construed as code words for "Communist" and "Socialist". We don't always have to agree with one another, but we should try to treat each other with respect."

"Mr. Chiu plays gotcha. I complained in my letter entitled, "The Bankruptcy Bill and Arlene Specter" which appeared in the Suburbanite of May 8, about "14" Democrats who voted for a bankruptcy bill in 2005 that took bankruptcy protection from ordinary Americans. Apparently I miscounted. As Mr. Chiu gleefully points out, actually 18 Democrats and 1 Independent voted for this outrageous bill. But this simply reinforces the point I was making, that there are too many Democrats who did the bidding of the banking lobby. But at least a majority of Democrats voted against it. Not a single Republican voted against it. The party of "No" wasn't the party of "No" then. They are never on the side of ordinary Americans.

"Mr. Chiu then goes on to try to justify this outrageous bill. He says "Some deliberately ran up credit card debts and simply declared bankruptcy later on." but Mr Chiu doesn't tell us where he gets this information from, and even if some did, does that justify such a drastic remedy? The fact is that according to the Harvard Journal of Health Affairs, in 2001 'medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans annually -- counting debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children.

'Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. However, 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy.

'Most of the medical bankruptcy filers were middle class; 56 percent owned a home and the same number had attended college. In many cases, illness forced breadwinners to take time off from work -- losing income and job-based health insurance precisely when families needed it most.

'Families in bankruptcy suffered many privations -- 30 percent had a utility cut off and 61 percent went without needed medical care."

"Chiu then goes on to claim once again that Republicans don't want to do away with Social Security. Has he conveniently forgotten Republican attempts to push for individual savings accounts invested in the stock market that would be funded by diverting a large portion of the SS taxes to such accounts, which would deplete the SS fund even faster than it is already being depleted. Ronald Reagan saved SS by increasing the limit on the payroll tax, provided for the the retirement age to be increased, and taxing higher income SS recipients and plowing the proceeds back into the trust fund, but the new Republicans want no such reforms. They want SS to be bankrupt just as quickly as possible.

Has Mr. Chiu conveniently forgotten McCain's comment on Social Security during the campaign, "Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that’s a disgrace."

"There is nothing wrong with terms like Right and Left any more than there is anything wrong with using Republican or Democratic, but there is something wrong with misrepresenting the positions of the parties or of the issues as Mr. Chiu consistently does. There is something wrong with the smears like the Swift Boaters, which Mr.Chiu defended in a previous letter, There is something wrong with the Willie Horton ads, which Mr. Chiu defended in a previous letter. There is something wrong with the phony Harry and Louise ads which doomed Health Care reform in the Clinton Administration. And as I said in my previous letter, there is something wrongwith calling progressives Communists, Fascists, Socialists, Muslim and friend of terrorists, in the case of Obama
and even lesbian, in the case of Clinton, (not that either Muslim or lesbian should be a term of opprobrium).

"But I don't hear Mr Chiu criticizing these smears. Truth hurts Mr. Chiu! Attempts to divert attention from the real issues don't work anymore. Attempts at pretending that everybody is for Social Security don't work anymore; not when the record is so clear. The party of "No" is dooming itself. It is the party that has even turned its back on the positive aspects of Ronald Reagan, who, by the way, advocated trying to do away with nuclear bombs, an objective which todays Republican nay-sayers denounce. From the web-site of the Libertarian Cato institute website, "Reagan, contrary to his image as a champion of the bomb, was a nuclear abolitionist. This is not a mere historical curiosity. Abolishing nuclear weapons was one of Reagan’s fundamental goals for his presidency."

"We could easily carve two parties out of the Democratic Party and no-one would miss the one whose voice is Cheney and Limbaugh. Other parties in American history have vanished. Gone are the Federalist Party,
the Democratic-Republican Party and the Whig Party.

"Too many Democrats are too often on the wrong side of issues. But the party of "NO" deserves to see the setting sun. Lies can no longer save it."

The Bankruptcy Bill and Arlen Specter

Why are the bankruptcy laws available to the rich but not to every-man? What do Democrats gain when they embrace Arlen Specter?

Some may wonder how they are interrelated, but they are.

We have witnessed many large and small corporations become overwhelmed with debt. They file for what is known as Chapter 11 bankruptcy under which their debtors are encouraged, and many are required to forgive at least part of the debts and the corporation emerges from the process with a new beginning. We saw that happen with Continental Airlines, and we now see the process unfolding with Chrysler and quite possibly soon with GM.

It used to be available to the average Joe or Jane (maybe even to Joe the Plumber) but it was taken away in March of 2005. The matter is summarized by the BSC Alliance.com Credit and Debt solutions alliance, as follows: "After an eight year long battle funded by the banking and credit card industries, who contributed more than $40 million to federal election campaigns during this period, The United States Bankruptcy Code has finally been amended. The new bill was approved by the Senate in March 2005 and by the House on April 14, 2005. The changes to the Bankruptcy Code became official law on October 17, 2005." 

Today adequate publicity has been given to the predatory practices of the credit card industry. They drive people into bankruptcy by taking a relatively small debt, and by encouraging the debtor to pay the smallest conceivable amount each month, create a situation where the principal instead of shrinking gets bigger over time, and then by increasing the interest rate at will and adding exorbitant fees if a monthly payment is missed, they create a situation where the debtor often ends up in debt to a multiple of the debt incurred. G-d forbid the debtor should get sick resulting in his loss of job, health insurance and now mounting debts he finds the door to debt relief through the bankruptcy courts no longer available.

That 2005 bill passed the senate by a vote of 74 to 25. Not a single Republican voted against it. They are not always the party of NO. Not when it comes to protecting the interests of the banking industry. Where was Arlen Specter? He voted with his brethren. According to "On the Issues", he voted with the Republican Party 67% of 322 votes. Democrats are not so united. Fourteen, including now VP Biden and now majority leader Reid voted with the Republicans. But at least these Democrats didn't vote 67% of the time with Republicans. The pressure after eight years of lobbying was intense and Bill Clinton signed the bill.

Fast forward to 2009, we have a bankruptcy bill to protect homeowners from foreclosure when their homes are "under water" pending in the Senate. 

Once again the party of NO was solidly against this. They don't believe in giving anyone, but the rich, a break. Where was Arlen Specter? You guessed it, he was now officially a Democrat, but who did he vote with? He voted with his former brethren. We know where his heart lies. To be sure, once again 12 Democrats voted against every-man but that is the more reason why we don't need another like Specter.

What happened to Arlen Specter? In today's Republican Party 67% isn't good enough. It's like the Communist party of old. They expect 100%. Specter was about to lose the Republican Party primary in Pennsylvania to a true blue acolyte of Right wing politics from the Club for Growth. This Republican nominee would have had no chance to win and a real Democrat would have been elected; one who could have been counted on to support the Obama agenda. But instead the Trojan horse in the form of Specter has entered the gates. The Democratic party is a big tent. There is no problem with having a Democrat who only votes 67% of the time with his party. But do the Democrats need someone who votes 33% of the time with them, and 67% with Republicans? What have Democrats gained? If this were a situation of needing one vote to organize the Senate, it might have been understandable. But that is not the case, and Specter cannot be counted on to be the 60th vote to prevent a filibuster. He has already announced on "Meet the Press" last Sunday that he will oppose the Presidents Health Reform initiative.

I say Republicans don't want him and Democrats shouldn't either. It is to be hoped that Specter will be challenged in the Democratic primary and will be sent into the retirement he so richly deserves.

In referring to a "true blue acolyte of Right wing politics" above I do not, as Mr. Chiu suggests in his Letter to the Editor of the Fort Lee Suburbanite, which is quoted below, mean to imply Fascist or Nazi. I simply cannot find any other suitable word for this movement. The media often calls them "conservative" but they are anything but conservative. They do not want to conserve, but to radically change things to the way the were in the days of President Harding, to undo the "New Deal" and the "Great Society" and even many reforms enacted under Republicans, Teddy Roosevelt and even Richard Nixon. That is not conservative. Some would have called them Reactionaries, but I don't know what that tells us. Right Wing is appropriate, and the bellyaching from people who have called progressives Communists, Fascists, Socialists, Muslim and friend of terrorists, in the case of Obama, and even lesbian, in the case of Clinton, (not that either Muslim or lesbian should be a term of opprobrium) have no standing to complain about a term that does no more than honestly describe their philosophy. As for the suggestion that the debate is just about which stimulus is better, that makes Republican opposition seem even worse, for that would hardly justify their unanimously trying to block a plan that they consider only not as good as theirs.

The letter from Mr. Chiu is quoted below:

"I have read many of Emil Scheller's letters. I wonder if his use of "Right Wing" isn't just for some descriptive purpose, but also code language for Nazi or Fascist. In liberal New York, this term is hardly a compliment. 

"If he took a friendlier tone, I'm sure he could convert some people to his positions. In fact, many people, especially if they don't double check his "facts" because his arguments can be persuasive. But instead he labels people who don't agree with him as "minions of the Republican party" or uses other epithets synonymous with "idiot". 

"In his letter published in the April 24, 2009 issue, he mentions his previous statement that Republicans claim the New Deal was "totally ineffective". I've never heard any Republican say that. My old high school history teacher, a Democrat, said the New Deal created jobs but did not itself end the Depression. It was WWII that did. That's the consensus of the history books. And, again, no one ever said "totally ineffective". Any stimulus would create economic activity. If Democrats spent $1 and get 50 cents of stimulus, the Republicans may want 60 or 70 cents of stimulus from that dollar. And they may claim that their plan is better. That's what the debate is about."

Debating in My Local Paper

Every once in a while I find one of the rants by people who have a knee-jerk Right wing reaction to whatever goes on too provocative to resist answering. This is particularly true when they reflexively use the standard talking points of their brethren. The latest of the Right talking point appears to be to to hold Communist China as the model we should emulate.

Thus on March 20, 2009 there appeared in my local newspaper, the Fort Lee Suburbanite, the following Letter to the Editor:

"The Chinese communist government has it right. As a result of the global economic slowdown, they have reduced individual taxes and cut wasteful spending. There is no tax on the net profits of private businesses.

The government even cut taxes in half on small cars and that act resulted in a sales gain of 25 percent in its first four months of operation. Cutting taxes in the appropriate manner generates economic growth. JFK advocated the same program before his assassination and it worked. He even wanted to abolish the Federal Reserve System because he felt it was detrimental to the economy of the country.

"The present stimulus package does nothing to stimulate the private sector to generate jobs for the unemployed. In fact, it only enables government to expand and government expansion always means a greater tax burden for those who are employed.

"What ever happened to that old philosophy concerning teaching someone to fish rather than giving them fish as charity? There is nothing in this stimulus legislation concerning re-training those who have lost jobs for the future employment. New technology demands trained workers.

"The first stimulus bill, when President Bush was in office, provided families with money but did little to stimulate business. Most of the recipients paid bills with their newfound cash and there was little demand for increased supply. How easily we forget.

"Giving money to the states diminishes the responsibility of state governments as well as their relationship with the federal government.

"There were states, then called colonies, before there was a federal government. Our country is composed of "United States.” The Constitution guarantees certain states rights. If state governments would have had balanced budgets, they would not need any assistance from the federal government. If the voters of a state enable it to overspend then they must suffer the consequences.

"Congress has long forgotten their role as delineated by the Constitution of these United States. They have abused the "general welfare" clause year after year. That clause enables Congress to spend money for the "general welfare" of the country ... not for particular pork items that concern a state, a city, a municipality, and a pet project. Congress has also encroached on the domain of the President and the Supreme Court by passing laws that on their face violate the U.S. Constitution. Congress has limited power, as does each of the three branches of the federal government. Throughout our country's history, Congress has enacted legislation that clearly should have been vetoed by various Presidents, but because of party affiliation, were signed into law.

"It is also amazing that those in power today want to limit the salaries of those who generate jobs in various industries, but are silent regarding the ridiculous salaries paid to professional sports figures.

"How do we, as a society, pay a ballplayer 10 million dollars a year and a teacher under 50 thousand dollars a year? Who has the greater influence on our youth? We have lost our values as a society!

"The current stimulus bill stimulates government and little else. It illustrates that Congress has lost its way and that this President is no improvement over the previous one regarding the economy. By the way, who is financing all of the president's czars and committees and the results of his Presidential orders? I thought Congress controlled the purse strings of the federal treasury ... by law!"

I did not respond until April 4 because there were other topics I wanted to address. But on this date my letter in response was published, which took the writer to task as follows:

"Mr. Haas (Letter to the Editor of March 20) denounces President Obama's stimulus package, but he is so unacquainted with the facts, or worse has so little regard for them, that for him to spread such misinformation is a disservice to your readers. Mr. Haas holds up Communist China as the example we should be following as a country that passed no stimulus, somehow failing to tell us that China, in fact, passed a massive stimulus package. According to Forbes of November 9, 2008, "Four trillion yuan ($586 billion) will be spent (by the Chinese government) on upgrading infrastructure, particularly roads, railways, airports and the power grid; on raising rural incomes via land reform; and on social welfare projects such as affordable housing and environmental protection."

"As for cutting taxes, Mr. Haas forgets to mention that 1/3 of the Obama stimulus bill is directed to tax cuts, while China only lowered transaction taxes, reducing down payments and lowering mortgage rates and it is cutting the tax on little cars, hardly comparable to the much more extensive tax cuts in the Democratic stimulus package, Mr. Haas decries. As for the vaunted Kennedy tax cut, it was similar to the Obama tax cut and was intended to stimulate demand. It was not, as he and his Right wing cohorts would have us believe, a supply side tax cut.

"Mr. Haas than brings out a commonly spread lie, (actually usually spread by the far left as part of the assassination conspiracy theory) that JFK wanted to abolish the Federal Reserve System, for which there is no evidence, and which would have been a disaster in any case, the Fed being a major bulwark in preventing the complete collapse of the US and world economies. This distortion had its genesis in Kennedy’s Executive Order 11,110, which did not (as is usually suggested) create new authority to issue additional silver certificates. In fact, its intention was to ease the process for their removal, so that small denomination Federal Reserve Notes could replace them in accordance with a law Kennedy himself signed. If Kennedy had really sought to reduce Federal Reserve power, then why did he sign a bill that gave the Fed still more power?
"Mr. Haas then goes on to claim that; "the stimulus package does nothing to stimulate the private sector to generate private jobs for the unemployed.” What nonsense! When consumers have money and spend it, they obviously create demand for goods produced by the private sector, which creates jobs in that sector, and when the money is giving to those who have the least, they are the most likely to spend it quickly rather than save it, because their need for food, shelter and the necessities of life are pressing.

"Mr. Hass' admiration for China is instructive, for China has no safety net, no unemployment insurance, no Social Security, no old age pensions and the average Chinese worker in the textile and agricultural industries earns less than 20,000 yuan per annum (2,849 U.S. dollars).

"Finally Mr. Haas rants about States over-spending, choosing to ignore that the crisis extends to all states, whether Republican or Democratic, and is caused by the failure of tax receipts caused by the recession.

"He complains about teachers being underpaid, a sentiment I share, but forgets that paying teachers more would increase state and local expenditures, something he rants against.

"As for excessive salaries paid to professional sports figures, he forgets, or ignores, that this is the private sector, which he extols, and where he and I should be able to agree that it should not be subject to government interference.

"Neither accuracy nor consistency, are Mr. Haas' hallmark, which is why I rarely respond to his diatribes."

Unfortunately, I think for him, my adversary did not know enough to leave well enough alone and wrote this rather whiny letter.

"I do not know Mr. Scheller. I do not know anything about him other than what he writes in his letters to the editor. I do know that he hopes I do not respond to his left-wing professions of "facts:' On April 15, the people will have demonstrated their feelings about the President's stimulus package.

"Since when does $586 billion equal over $3 trillion? Has he been to China lately to see the rapidity of the upgrading of the infrastructure? How do you generate the greatest debt in American history and promise tax cuts? President Kennedy's tax cuts worked. As for the Federal Reserve, Mr. Scheller is in error. President Kennedy signed an executive order abolishing that board because he deemed it not in the best interests of the citizens of our country.

"If Mr. Scheller would read about the founding of that Board and its negative impact on our economic foundations, he would join hundreds of economists who echo my sentiments. Do we Americans want our money supply run by people who are not accountable to anyone but themselves?

"Mr. Scheller ignores the growing number of unemployed and their dependence on government funds. The "consumers" have no money until they have jobs. Government generated jobs cost taxpayers. What President Obama wants to do is take money from the producers and give it to the consumers. That will create demand by the consumers, but omits the fact that if the producers now lack adequate funds, how do they produce? Is the government now going to be in the production business?

"State governments are responsible for their own problems. They overspent in the "good times" way before our present economic crisis. Those states who have extended citizen's rights to illegal immigrants are suffering the most. The recession has added to the negativity of their situation.

"Teachers are underpaid. Professional athletes are overpaid. Somewhere we, as a society, have lost our sense of values. It is interesting that Mr. Scheller states that professional sport figures are the result of the private sector and teachers' salaries depend on the government sector. That disparity illustrates that the private sector generates more income than the government sector and that greater income increases greater consumption, which increases the need for more jobs. That greater income also increases the taxes paid to city, state, and federal governments.

"I am consistent in my belief in the capitalistic society. I am consistent in my belief that Congress has and is violating its constitutional obligations. Pork-barrel spending does not have a constitutional basis. The clause of the Constitution for "good and welfare" mentions for ALL the people. Spending on particular city or particular state projects is not for the benefit of ALL the people of the United States!

"I am consistent in my belief that both political parties are lead by those who do not truly represent the desires of the citizens of this country. I am consistent in my belief that changing the name of someone or of some action or some entity does not change the person, or the act, or the entity.

"I am consistent with the fact that I am, despite Mr. Scheller's opinion, consistent with the facts."