Reality Check (Further Discussion)

On February 7th I posted "Reality Check!! (Discussion)" to my blog and it was distributed to subscribers that evening. In that post I first set forth my exchange on that topic with Albert Nekimken PhD of Vienna, Virginia, but in the second portion presented an exchange with Mike Cerrato Esq. of Westville, New Jersey. That exchange continued, but was not posted promptly because I felt the need to address "The President’s Second Inaugural Address." Both posts can easily be accesses by double clicking on their titles shown in bold above.

Now I would like to share with my readers the concluding portions of my discussion with Mike Cerrato. Mike wrote:

OOOH, you are making me think about this stuff. That hurts! 

I guess we are going in the same direction, but from slightly differing directions. Of course, I cannot disagree that the reality of what I will call capitalistic opportunism does not in any way come close to the horrors of slavery, I don't believe the mindsets of the opportunists are all that different than the slaveholders. The only difference is, I fear, degree. Only a little over a century separate us from the days when the chains were all too real to today, when they consist of those created by self-appointed masters of the universe who have constructed their more-figurative chains through the crony capitalist-supporting legal and economic systems which enable them to grab most of the pie while forcing the rest of us to fight over the scraps they allow to fall off the table. I cannot help but believe that, had today's robber barons been born in 1860 below the Mason-Dixon line, they would have been all too happy to own a few other human beings. 

I wholeheartedly agree with you, however, about the need to "balance the system."

My response is set forth below:

Thanks, for that compliment. If I can make my readers think, that is far more important than having them agree.

It is second only to giving them facts that they did not possess, and if in the process I slay a few myths, then I am having a very good day.

I am afraid that you are decrying the nature of the beast. Man, or should I say Homo Sapiens, to make sure the female is not overlooked, is and always has been a selfish species. It is the argument against Democracy, which is often referred to as the rule of the mob. It is why our founders created a Republic, and not a Democracy. They were a bunch of aristocrats, who didn't trust the people. That is why the President was to be chosen by electors, rather than the people. Why Senators to be chosen by state legislators and not by direct suffrage. The vote restricted to male property owners and not to others.

Over time we became a Democracy. Still an imperfect one, but a Democracy nevertheless. Many on the Right would like us to return to the Republic of our forefathers. Would our plutocrats of today enslave us if they could? I don't know? Certainly some would! Most I think not. It is irrelevant.

Homo Sapiens are what he/she are, and we have no control over that. It is only what system we employ that we can control.

You appear to be attacking the Capitalist system in all its forms. To that I say the same as I say about Democracy. About that I quote Winston Churchill, "It has been said that Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

I have to say the same about Capitalism. It too is the worst form of an economic system except for all the others that have been tried.

Today every country that has any kind of successful economic system has a free enterprise system including, "Communist" China. The only variations are the degree to which the system is regulated and the extent to which the state has a hand on the tiller. Where socialist systems have been tried they have failed. We don't have to look at the usual straw men systems such as the Soviet Union to see that. The Labor Party in Britain kept nationalizing the economy every time they came to power. It didn't work. They gave it up.

There are very few instances of managed economies left in the world and they are all failing their people. Venezuela is a prime example. Well meaning, but a disaster. Uganda? Cuba? Well we can make excuses for Cuba because of our economic boycott, but the rest of the world trades with them. I don't think their failures, and I recognize they have some successes, such as good health care, can be blamed entirely on the US.

I am a lawyer like you, only I practiced on the international scene. I remember when India was a Socialist country anxious to keep out foreign capital. It didn't work.

What makes Capitalism work is the very fact that people are essentially selfish. We can't change that! We can only devise a system that takes advantage of that inherent trait.

Like sports, it depends on competition. Like sports, it needs rules, so that mere muscle and unrestrained power does not carry the day. Like sports it needs referees to see that the rules are enforced. Without these rules and the referees it becomes a fixed sport known as crony capitalism.

That is where the battle lies. We fight about the rules and their enforcement and leveling the playing field. To make, as I have said, false equivalencies about good and evil, and the inherent greed of homo sapiens, brings us no nearer to a juster society (and I will not speak of a just society, because there is no such thing). We strive, and the struggle endures; it never ceases. That is what it is all about!

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

The President’s re-election (More Discussion IV)

In a number of recent posts I set forth a long, and I believe very useful, discussion between Roger Streit of West Orange, NJ and me.

I urge the reader to review that discussion as previously set forth in my posts "The President’s re-election (Discussion)" where I set forth at its beginning exchanges with various people, but near its end my discussion with Roger commences. This discussion continued at length in my post "The President’s re-election (More Discussion)"

However, I then published my exchange with Albert Nekimken, of Vienna Virginia, who had commented on the exchange with Roger in my posts entitled "The President’s re-election (More Discussion II)" and "The President’s Re-election (More Discussion III)."

In the following three posts I digressed from this stimulating discussion. I now want to share the rest of it with my readers.

On November 28, 2012 where after having watched a Paul Krugman / Joseph Stiglitz discussion on C-Span, which Roger recommended to me, I wrote to Roger:

I want to comment on the Krugman/Stiglitz discussion. Krugman used WW II as an example of running up a large deficit that stimulated the economy. He didn't say, and I don't know, (nor do I want to research it) how large the deficit was as a percent of GDP going into the war, nor how large it was at its end. But by his logic we could deal with our present economic problems by quadrupling the budget of the defense department even without a tax increase. I know he wouldn't favor that, but if what he says is true, that is one thing Republicans would go for. So it seems that this would be an easy political solution.

This was never responded to directly, but on December 2nd Roger called my attention to a post by Timothy Egan in the New York Times that can be accessed here, and quoting from that column called my attention to this statement in the column:

Liberalism, in the broadest sense, is about expanding human rights and opportunity, while embracing science and reason.

My response was lengthy! (Brevity isn’t my strong suit.)

I have no problem with that definition. It is too bad that the general public doesn't see it that way. Too discuss why would require a dissertation by itself, so maybe another time.

As for the column as a whole, I think he is too easy on the Republican Party. Since as early as 1876, Republicans gave up their only saving grace as the party of Lincoln. 

"Reconstruction was brought about in the disputed 1876 Presidential election. The Democratic candidate, Tilden, won the popular vote, but neither candidate initially had a majority of electoral votes due to disputes over returns in Florida, Louisiana and S. Carolina--the only states in which federal troops were still stationed in 1876. Although they were not numerous enough to stop white intimidation of black voters, the troops were considered an affront by white Democrats. In back room negotiations, Democrats conceded the disputed election returns to Hayes in return for his agreement to withdraw the remaining 3,000 federal troops, thereby putting a formal end to Reconstruction and assuring Democratic control, based on a platform of white supremacy and black disenfranchisement, throughout the South.” See here. While they had some "liberal" or "progressive moments" after that, they were more aberrations, than real party policy, e.g. Teddy Roosevelt was not popular in the Republican Party. They hated his progressive agenda when he was governor of New York and so to get rid of him, they kicked him upstairs to V-P, figuring he could die on the vine there. This backfired when President McKinley was assassinated and Teddy Roosevelt ascended to the Presidency. 

Along the way there were some real progressive Republicans, such as Morse of Oregon, La Follette of Wisconsin, Hiram Johnson in California, Charles Evans Hughes of New York, and later Jack Javits of New York, and Chase of New Jersey, but they were always a minority.

Nixon supported some progressive things such as the Environmental Protection Agency and even proposed a national health insurance plan, but he was always a political opportunist and was the architect of the Republican Southern Strategy. The Republican Party is and always has been the Party of the rich, and its alliances with racists, theocrats, and misogynists, is opportunistic. But they can't shed them and survive.

After this digression, Roger returned to the main theme, by citing Krugman’s blog and added:

Anyway, my own answer is still what it has been all along: the time for austerity is when the economy is close enough to full employment that the Fed is starting to raise rates to head off an undesirably high rate of inflation; at this point, given the case for somewhat higher inflation, I’d say that we shouldn’t even think about this until unemployment is well below 7 and falling fast. At that point you can, in effect, make a deal — fiscal austerity in return for not hiking rates — that leaves the economy harmless.

And went on to quote from one Paul Mathis:

Since the focus of policy over the past three years has been almost entirely on the federal debt and the implicit danger that its size represents, there has been relentless fear mongering by conservatives about an unspecified danger somewhere in the future that will cause our economy to collapse. Therefore, austerity right now is essential to prevent this calamity regardless of the consequences for economic growth and employment. 

Liberals have been no help in negating this fear mongering because they have agreed, without evidence, that the federal debt is "unsustainable" and must be reduced. In fact, liberals have proudly pointed to the reductions in federal spending that have already occurred, e.g., the wage freeze for federal employees that has gone on for more than 2 years already. 

Those who have said that the federal debt is no problem because interest rates are at historic lows and that any debt, if necessary, can always be repaid with newly "printed" money are derided for "enslaving" us to the Chinese who "own" us and control our future. 

So the bottom line, as usual in American politics, is racism in the form of xenophobia against the Chinese. Against that derangement, we all contend in vain.”

To which my reply was:

While the Chinese have been a whipping boy, it is not fair to blame Republicans entirely for this. To a very large extent, the attack on the Chinese was started by the Labor Unions, who stupidly wanted to stop globalization. They started the campaign against globalization under the Clinton Administration when they vigorously opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico, a treaty that has benefited both the US and Mexico. In fact Obama kind of bought into this when he kept talking about jobs shipped overseas. Jobs shipped overseas are an inevitable consequence of globalization, which can no more be stopped, than could the industrial revolution, which the unions also vigorously opposed, resorting to breaking machinery, which is where the term "sabotage" comes from.

Don't get me wrong, I am for unions, but they are often their own worse enemy.

As for the Chinese, it is wholly a stupid argument, no matter who employs it. "China, it turns out, holds less than eight percent of the money our government has borrowed over the years...But politicians like to find an external enemy to rally the troops against, and China is an easy target." 

To which Roger asserted:

…you have bought into the fear of economic calamity because of “unsustainable” deficits.  Krugman says there has never been a collapse of a country with its own currency.

To which I cited:

Argentina.

Roger went on to say:

We can print money when necessary and we can raise taxes and slow spending when the economy is overheating.

And I forcefully pointed out:

Like so many, you simply ignore arguments and facts that don't fit your predilections. In my last e-mail I pointed out the inflation under Nixon and Carter that was caused by the huge deficits during the Johnson Administration's policy of bread and war.

I also asked why; if deficits are the solution, why not simply create a huge deficit by not raising taxes and exploding the Pentagon budget. No response!

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

The Mystery of the Blind Chinese Lawyer

While the media frequently loves a mystery it appears to have been blind to this one.

If the facts here do not constitute a mystery worthy of Sherlock Holmes, it is difficult to imagine a better one.

Let us examine the facts: A blind self-taught lawyer named Chen Guangcheng is placed under house arrest by the Chinese authorities. According to reports the house arrest is severe. According to Human Rights Watch:

Since July 2011, increasing numbers of Chinese citizens have attempted to break the unlawful blockade around Chen’s home in order to visit him and express support. These activists encounter obstruction by police and plainclothes thugs who appear to operate at official behest and who unlawfully detain them and prevent them from reaching Chen’s hometown in Dongshigu, Linyi County of Shandong Province. Some activists have been beaten and robbed in their attempts to reach Chen’s village. Chen and Yuan were reportedly brutally beaten for four hours by the local mayor and other officials, in the presence of their daughter.  

Chen said that guards had, during the period of confinement, broken one of his wife’s bones and physically assaulted his elderly mother on her most recent birthday.

The reader should note that the guards prevented activist supporting Chen from reaching him. According to Amnesty International:

Visitors attempting to see Chen while under house arrest told media they were beaten, robbed of their possessions, and driven away from the village with bags over their heads in one famous attempt to visit the blind activist, Batman actor Christian Bale and a CNN television crew accompanying him were roughed up by a local guard.

According to the Sun Sentinel of South Florida:

The yard appeared enclosed with a high wall, a feature of homes typical of the rural areas of northern China. Outside the Chen home is a dusty, quiet village of one-story brick and concrete houses surrounded by farmland.

Other reports mentioned barbed wire.

Yet wonder of wonders, suddenly activists who had not been able to get to Chen before were able to scale the wall, get through the barbed wire, elude the guards and get to him, at the very moment that a high level US State Department delegation was on the way to Beijing.

Not only get to him, but lead this blind man, past the guards without being seen, get him over a wall, and make it to Beijing and the American Embassy. All without his family accompanying him, and without any concern that retribution would be visited upon them.

He then tells the embassy personnel that he wants them to negotiate for his release from house arrest, to be allowed to have medical treatment, to be reunited with his family in Beijing and then to be allowed to study at a Chinese university. American diplomats get the Chinese to agree to all the terms and Chen leaves the Embassy and goes to a hospital where he is reunited with his family.

END OF STORY, or at least one would have thought so. An American diplomatic triumph!!!

Suddenly Chen claims to have discovered that his family and those who helped him were beaten after his escape. Is that not what he should have, and probably did anticipate? The Chinese now, ostensively, bar American diplomats from seeing him in the hospital, but allow him to have a cell phone. ARE THE CHINESE STUPID OR WHAT ARE THEY UP TO?

Chen then announces that upon his discovery that his family has been abused (surprise, surprise), asks to be allowed to go to the US with his family, starts phoning all over the world with his cell phone and the Chinese do not interfere. He calls the Associated Press, he calls American officials at the Embassy and he telephones Chris Smith (R-N.J), the chairman of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, to examine Chen Guangcheng’s quandary. See here. Lo and behold Chris Smith knows that Chen is going to call and has a Chinese interpreter and cameras standing by.

STRANGE, STRANGE, but the American media saw nothing strange. Just another example of the strange behavior of the American media.

Of course there is an immediate attempt to make the incident into an American political football, as Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, says it would be a “dark day for freedom’’ if press reports were borne out that U.S. officials had persuaded Mr. Chen to leave his sanctuary in the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, when all indications were that they had simply been following his wishes. Things, however, don't turn out so well for Romney. According to the Wall Street Journal: “Robert Jeffress, senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, a mega-church, said in an interview Friday:"

The way the administration has handled this thus far is encouraging, especially given the positive response of the Chinese people and the Chinese government to date. But ultimately, the proof of their competency will be in the final result. He said it wasn’t the time to criticize administration officials working toward a solution. 

Right now, as Christians, we ought to be praying for Secretary (Hillary) Clinton and the Obama administration instead of taking cheap shots for partisan gain,’’ the pastor said. 

Asked about Mr. Romney’s statements, he added: “I don’t think now is the time to engage in political partisanship.

But Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.), said he will formally request a congressional review of all cable traffic, classified or otherwise, that surrounded the negotiations for Chen to leave the embassy. 

Now that it appears to have been agreed that Chen and his family are to come to the US with the consent of all concerned, unless Chen changes his mind again. It is to be hoped that the partisanship will end – BUT THE MYSTERY REMAINS.

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

Speculators and the Price of Gasoline - Discussion

This is an issue that I had not originally intended to discuss. But since it is one of the favorite hobbyhorses of the Left and since Eric Offner of Manhasset Hills, NY has been raising this issue forcefully, I discussed it in my post of March 29, under the heading "Control of the Weather (Discussion)." Offner has now chosen to pursue this, which prompted me to do a fairly long dissertation on the subject. I now want to share my analysis with my readers.

Offner wrote:

First see the article in Business Week entitled "Why Obama's Crackdown on Oil Speculators Won't Work." 

Then answer these questions:

1.) If a crackdown on oil speculators won’t work, does it not imply that there are oil speculators?

2.) Is it possible that Wall Street oil speculators affect the price of oil?

3.) The bigger question is whether speculation on food, water and other necessities exists and whether such action is ethical?

4.) Is failure to restrict unethical behavior unethical?

My response to his questions is set forth under corresponding numbers:

1.) Yes of course there are. The question should not be whether there are speculators but whether it is ever possible to eliminate them and whether they are bad. The answer is that it is not possible to eliminate them and in many cases not even possible to regulate them. Sometimes they are bad, sometimes good, most often neither.

2.) It is not only possible, it is probable. But that is not necessarily bad. Look at the article you sent me. He argues convincingly that speculators even-out the speed at which prices change. Without them, as happened some years ago the price can quadruple almost over-night and a more gradual rise is better for the economy and consumers.

3.) Yes and Yes. Let me take this down to basics. There is a rumor that sugar, or for that matter water, will be in short supply. Most people, i.e. consumers upon hearing this will head for the markets and hoard it. The result is the price goes up and soon the shelves are empty. A self-fulfilling prophecy. Now let us suppose a larger speculator wants to take advantage of the situation and so he goes out and buys many tons of sugar, puts them in a ware house (or he buys futures) and then taking advantage of the rising prices resells it at a hefty profit. As he and others begin to sell the price goes down. Is he/she now a good speculator? How do you stop this? Do you make it illegal for anyone to buy more than a certain amount? How do you determine the amount? How would this effect a legitimate store or a legitimate wholesaler, who by the nature of their trade must buy large amounts?

The way to stop this is price controls and rationing which brings about a black market, where the price is even higher and even less sugar in the stores. We are now seeing this in Venezuela.

Are there times when rationing and price controls are appropriate? Yes!!! But only in extreme cases, such as war-time, when the evils of the black market are preferred to letting hoarding control, but it is always a close question. Where the hoarding is by a limited group, intent on creating shortages and raising prices, it falls afoul of the anti-trust laws and definitely should be prosecuted.

Is Obama's approach sound? I don't know, but it is good politics. He is doing something!!!

Raising the margin price on commodities speculation seems like a sensible thing to do, but it takes someone more knowledgeable than I to analyze the consequences. The article you sent me seems knowledgeable and objective.

I will say this. When Allan Greenspan talked about the stock market suffering from irrational exuberance, the obvious thing to do, as far as I could see and still believe, was to raise the margin requirement, which was within the power of the Fed, but because of Greenspan's hostility to all regulations this was not done - ditto for so many other things that could have headed off the crash.

But I don't know the commodities market - We apparently have regulations but we need money to enforce them. Everything else is shooting in the dark. Simplistic answers whether from Left or Right rarely have any merit.

The article in Business Week appears to be an intelligent one. It recognizes that regulations are important and need enforcing by the CFTC. Thus it is apparent that we have regulations in place that are not being enforced, or at least not being enforced adequately. But the Republican Congress will never appropriate the money needed. Instead, they will make sure that what can be done is not done, and then blame the President, who can only do so much without Congress' help.

There are many problems with the world's food supply that are exacerbated by US policy.

The use of US ethanol as an additive to gasoline has created a shortage of corn and driven the price higher, but the corn lobby will prevent Congress from changing this.

Our foreign aid program with food is counter-productive. The law requires that we not give money to aid organizations for food aid, but rather buy the food from American farmers at much higher prices than we could buy it on the world market and it must be shipped in US vessels. If the law would allow our aid to be by buying the food from African farmers, we would save money both in the price of the food and in the shipping costs and we would aid the African economy. Now it enriches the American corporate farmers and hurts the African economy because it competes with the African grown food and drives that price down.

4.) No and the question is irrelevant since I have said such action is not unethical. But even where it is unethical there is always a weighing of unintended consequences. Simplistic questions and simplistic answers to complex problems are, well, simplistic.

I then added:

The oil market is a world market. How do you regulate trades made outside the US? If you rationed gasoline in the US, it would have no effect on the price of oil on world markets. If you had price controls on gasoline that were below the world price of oil, no one could afford to sell gasoline, since they would lose money on every gallon. World markets and globalization make a new ball game. But we can no more change it than we could stop the industrial revolution and now the technological revolution that brought about globalization.

Furthermore a high price of gas is not bad. It makes clean energy and conservation much more competitive

Even boycotts have limitations. We put a boycott on Iranian oil. But if China does not join the boycott, can it be effective? The boycott might force the price of Iranian oil to go down, in which case China gets a windfall. How do you stop this? Only with a full fledged blockade of Iran, an act of war, which would put us in conflict with China and get Iran to try to close the Straight of Hormuz. Can you imagine what the price of oil would go up to? Speculators will make a lot of money, but they are not causing the price rise - they are taking advantage of it. Is there anything we can do - yes, but I am not smart enough to know what. Ask Barney Frank - he understands these things better than I do, and while I am talking about Barney Frank I commend to you an interview of him, which appeared in New York Magazine.

Also we do have laws on the books and the Commodities and Exchange Commission, which needs more funding as recommended in the article you sent me to enforce the laws and regulations. But the Republicans will never authorize this. What can we do? Get rid of them to whatever extent we can.

But I get tired of the Left and their "it’s the speculators.”

Finally allow me to add that while normally a two party system benefits the country, now a defeat of the Republican Party to the point where we have only one party has the best hope of reforming the system. Now it is broken and can't be fixed. In our system a one party system would not last long. The Democratic Party would split in two.

Talk of a third party in our system is very counter-productive. It would make sense if we had run-offs as e.g. the French and most of the world do.

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

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."