The Letter the White Bear Press didnt print.

[loveable liberal]

Admittedly, it's a small town rag. But I like to respond to the local 'flat-earthers' whenever possible. The original letter supported *'s social security agenda and touted the Suits index regarding taxes. I suggested raising the FICA tax cap from 90 to 150 thousand to fix social security. This is my response.

Smaagard, your reply avoids all the points I made. Further, if you are going to prove yourself incorrect there’s really no point in me writing a counterpoint letter. You admit, using the Suits index, Minnesota has an overall regressive score of -.03. A regressive score means people who earn less pay more tax as a percentage of their overall income. Equating our tax system as being “only a little bit regressive” is the same as being “only slightly pregnant”, you either are or you are not. According to the report, the top money earning decile pays the least percentage in property taxes, the least amount in business taxes and the least amount in sales taxes.
In regards to Bill Clinton’s sex life, it’s always made me chuckle how conservatives think Bill is the first man in the history of the world who didn’t want his wife to find out he’s done something stupid. Most men’s transgressions do not cost the country 60 million dollars. Bill and Hillary are still married, which is admirable considering what their marriage has had to endure. You talk about lying to God. Marriage vows are a sworn oath, made in a holy house of God. Can anyone think of any divorced conservative politicians? I know I can think of a bunch of them. Want to discuss lies? How about “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction”. That one has cost 300 billion so far.
Lanny, the GAO report came out, refuting the Bush administrations assertion that social security is in trouble. When I write that there “might” be problems starting in the year 2042, do I need to explain that? Here is the difference Lanny. When Bill spoke of social security, the country had lots and lots of extra money. When George speaks of social security, we now owe lots of money to other countries and George wants to borrow more money to pay for his new boondoggle. Democrats were called ‘tax and spend’. Today’s Republicans should be called ‘borrow and spend’ (BS for short). At least with ‘tax and spend’ countries like China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and Germany do not own huge chunks of our economy. In case you’re confused as to the significance of other countries owning our economy, Google “sharecroppers”, that should provide plenty of insight.
All I want is for neo-conservative thinkers to come out into the light and tell the public their true agenda. The rights of business supersede the rights of the public. First, the public does not have the right to clean air and water. The Bush administration loosened mercury emission requirements for coal burning power plants. Defend what airborne mercury vapor and methyl mercury does to fetal development Lanny. Second, the public does not have the right to health care. The ranks of the uninsured have risen from 40 to 45 million during George’s tenure. Defend not allowing children access to medical professionals Lanny. Third, our veterans do not have the right to benefits. Our brave men and women who enter the Armed services are sent to the Middle East, reason yet to be determined, many of which will return home with both physical and mental disabilities, to a country whose government has slashed their benefits. After serving their country, willing to lay down their lives, seeing death and mayhem first hand, I want you Lanny to defend slashing the benefits that will aid these soldiers to try to return to civilian life. Fourth, the elderly do not have the right to affordable prescription drugs. George Bush won’t allow Medicare to negotiate bulk prices with pharmaceutical companies. Defend stiffing the elderly to preserve drug company profits Lanny. The list could go on and on to include the insurance industry, big oil, the credit industry, public utilities on and on and on….
I bring these issues up because they are a problem now. The reduction in Social Security benefit payments won’t occur for 37 years if at all! So go ahead Lanny, quote Clintons social security comments and compare the apples to the oranges. Defend the value of property over the value of life too. Don’t hide behind the concern for small business. Wal-mart threatens small business much more than liberals. Try to blame liberals for all the country’s ills. No matter how you respond, liberals fought for child labor laws, public education, civil rights, increases in minimum wage and the equal rights amendment. In every instance, liberals will always fight for the value of life over property. I refuse to apologize for that.

[davidwhite0570]

1. great letter.....

[Sinistrous]

2. Stating the issue, then asking for a defense of the problem:

Great rhetorical device! It puts the monkey on the other guy's back - and your letter does it over and over ...

[jiffy pop]

3. Here is his letter, pretty good writer. Do you know him? Is he local?

At the risk of getting into letter writing duels, I will reply to responses to my letter of two weeks ago.

Paul Jaehnert says he stands by his statement regarding an MDR Tax Increment Study released March 17, 2003 he says supports his statement regarding Minnesota taxes. Paul, please help me find this report but perhaps you mean MDR Tax Incidence Studies released every two years. The 2003 100 page MDR Tax Incidence Study based on year 2000 taxes has been summarized by the Minnesota Budget Project (part of the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits) on its website. State Incidence Studies report the level of regression or progression of a tax system using the Suits Index. The Suits Index is a number between a negative one and a positive one. A positive Suits Index represents a progressive tax system (higher incomes pay higher percentage of taxes), a zero indicates a fair proportional tax system and a negative Suits Index represents a regressive tax system (lower incomes pay higher percentage of taxes). According to the study the Minnesota Individual Income Tax system had a positive .184 Suits Index (indicating it is progressive) in 2000. Minnesota taxes with a negative Suits Index number (indicating they are regressive) in 2000 were principally cigarette, alcohol, gambling, fuel, and sales tax. The study reports that overall the Minnesota tax system was a negative .03 (indicating it is near proportional) in 2000.

Paul described my letter as a glowing endorsement of Bush’s personal accounts plan. It is certainly more complimentary than what I presume is his “Four more years of GW Bush” oratory found posted on the internet which tells me Paul is no fan of President Bush.

Brian Cunningham complained Congress spent 60 million finding out what Clinton did in his leisure time. Brian, Congress spent 60 million proving Clinton chose to lie under oath to God and to the American people instead of telling the truth in a sexual harassment case. That 60 million would not have been spent had he just told the truth.

Brian, I am confused regarding your answer to President Clinton’s numerous statements expressing his concern over the Social Security crisis during his second four year term. Are you saying that yes there is a crisis but we cannot afford to fix it or are you saying Clinton was lying all those times too and there is no Social Security crisis? Please clarify that for me.

[loveable liberal]

4. L is an excellent letter writer, only theres no substance.

The author would rather discuss Bill Clintons sex organs than discuss the response to his original letter. My response is not concerned with Bill Clintons penis, but rather suggests a solution to the 'made up' social security problem. As follows:

L.S. urges us to “get the facts straight” about Social Security. Fact: Social Security will be in crisis if we do nothing for 37 years! I’m all-aflutter. I offer an immediate fix. Raise the FICA tax cap from $90,000.00 to $150,000.00. That alone should buy us another 50 years to do something about the social security ‘crisis’. Let’s get the facts straight about private accounts. We already have access to private accounts! I’m sure there are more, but here is a short list of those already available (some of you may have already heard of these): the savings account, the checking account, the 401k, the 457 plan, the IRA and even the Roth IRA. Social Security is a safety net, nothing more. The Presidents problem is that he can’t think of one good reason why it should be privatized. What the President is going to do now is embark on a 60 day, 60 city, taxpayer funded whirlwind social security tour stumping for his terrible idea. How much will that cost? L uses impressive statistical analysis in his letter; I’m going to try to do the same. My facts don’t come from the partisan Whitehouse.gov; they come from the non-partisan, number crunching Government Accounting Office (GAO) by way of the Government Printing office (GPO). Now let’s get the facts straight about former President Bill Clinton. When Bill gave that social security speech in 1998 there was a Federal budget surplus of $69 billion dollars. The following year, 1999 for those of you losing interest, was a budget surplus of $125 billion dollars. In 2000, the budget surplus stood at 236 billion dollars. Contrast those facts with another fact. In 2003, the Federal budget deficit stood at $375 billion dollars. It would appear that our current President burned through $611 billion dollars with nothing to show but two wars. In 1998, it seemed reasonable to discuss tweaking social security’s problems when we had the money to do so. One more fact about the Clinton presidency, the Republican congress was more interested in what Bill did in his leisure time (to the tune of 60 million dollars and not one indictment) than they were about social security. The President’s plan would be more palatable if he weren’t slashing the budgets of education, environmental protection and veterans benefits and if there weren’t the lies about Jeff Gannon, Iraq, torture and mercury emissions (et alia, ad nauseam). One final suggestion, try not to use Scott Mcclellan as a counterpoint to misrepresentation.