ContextPerception

Letters to --- WashPostColumnist - Henneberger

 

Dear Ms. Henneberger:

I find it curious that in your column today about 'contraception contretemps' you don't mention that Federal funds are involved. The Bishops have made the case that the issue is a matter of religious dictates. Doesn't that raise constitutional issues of providing taxpayer federal funds in support of a religious issue? Isn't the matter of federal funds an important part of the context of the issue?

  

In one respect, I'm surprised that Republicans haven't latched on to the issue as they're generally concerned about constitutional issues and this seems like an ideal issue for them constitutionally and also as a prime candidate for spending cuts i.e. just remove all federal funds from all religious institutions.

 

Not being Catholic, I was also surprised when Dolan said they might have to give up their support for the poor and children. That a highly placed leader of the Catholics is willing to consider a Church dictate developed by humans on contraception to be more important than a dictate directly from Jesus Christ of helping the poor is rather incredible and makes me glad I'm not a Catholic.

  

Thanks.

Sincerely,

Letters to --- WashPost - Factchecker - SocialSecurity/Obama

 

Dear Mr. Kessler:

With regard to your giving Obama 3 Pinocchios, I have trouble understanding your conclusion. It seems that maybe you felt that he used the wrong version of Rommney's proposals to compare.

 

You don't give a basis for saying that he is using a "potentially unrealistic outcome". This is only true if you take as a given the conventional 'wisdom' of one side of the discussion that SS is in trouble. There are a goodly number of economists and persons directly involved in the SS system who don't accept that point of view. To say that even if Obama does something to improve the solvency of SS, benefits are likely to be cut in some fashion is only true if the people allow it to happen. The 'fix' is quite easily achieved by simply increasing the threshold of income subject to FICA equal to what it was before. I believe it was to ensure that 90% of all income is subject to the tax.

 

I'm always perplexed by the seemingly excessive focus on an issue which the best analysis says won't happen for 20 years or more when we should be concerned about the next 2 years. This particularly when SS has nothing to do with the deficit which is the prime call for the fearmongerers to cut benefits. The only reason for the drive to cut benefits now is to increase the excess receipts so the $2.6 trillion excess receipts don't have to be paid back. Just another example of placing the economic recovery on the backs of those who had nothing to do with the destruction of the past 3 years. Apparently, Chinese citizens should have a higher priority for repayment of loans than American citizens.

 

There are many reasons for the decrease in the balance for the future. Maybe Obama didn't have a choice but cutting the FICA tax was simply another way of helping the opposition have more leverage for cutting benefits as there is less excess receipts now. Another reason is that the high unemployment level affects those working people that are now no longer contributing. And a major reason is the increased inequality of income increases over the past 30 years most of which has benefited the top which doesn't help the account. That almost 90% of the benefits of the increased productivity over the past 30 years has gone to the top 5% does nothing for the account. After all the $20 billion that a handful of Wall Street Casino persons shared a year or so ago did absolutely nothing for the account although that same $20 billion spread among a million working class people would have had a significant effect on the account balance.

 

Confusing the SS account with the general budget account is a major effort of the SS killers to try to make the case for the 'need' to 'fix' the SS system when what they mean to do is 'fix' it like a randy tomcat is 'fixed'.

 

The SS account needs to be taken off budget so its receipts can't be confused with general tax receipts. The $2.6 trillion excess receipts over the past 20 years has allowed Congress and the media to hide the actual deficit over that time.

 

SS is an insurance program which has been paid for by premiums primarily from the working class. If you had paid for a whole life policy for 45 years and then when you wanted to annuitize it at retirement you were told the funds weren't there because they had been used for 'other' purposes such as excess profits for the insurance co., I think you would be pretty unhappy. In reality, the SS age should be lowered in order to get more people out of the workforce and make space for the younger people who are suffering the high unemployment. This was actually being discussed only a few years ago. As was decreasing the medicare age. But now the wealthiest country in the world has as its mantra - can't.

 

I realize this is too long for you to read and I'm only a senior citizen without sufficient understanding of the complexity and definable as less than 'with it' as I still pay for the printed Post with less news and more opinion; but I get frustrated with the lack of full context in the reporting and commentary of today's media.

 

Sincerely,

Letters to --- WashPost - TaxFairness

 

Dear Editors:

I think the letter from Tom Kiley regarding 'fairness' in taxes deserves a response. I certainly agree that claiming 'fairness' requires consideration of several issues.

  

1. Why should the cost basis for capital gains be indexed for inflation and not wages?

  

2. Double taxation. If I pay someone to fix my roof, s/he has to pay tax on what I pay even though those funds I

provide have already been taxed. Why should double taxation of corporations be treated differently, particularly, since corporations are now to be considered as persons?

  

3. Corporations' taxes aren't unusually high as fewer than half of US corporations pay corporate taxes. Also the actual tax rate paid by US corporations is among the lowest of industrialized nations.

  

4. Why should someone who rents his/her body for physical work and in some cases at considerable risk pay a different tax rate for their 'rental' income than someone who provides (rents) capital to a corporation pays on their rental income (dividends)?

  

I also hope that our next president will exert leadership to realize the goals of a tax code more fair, simpler, and effective at raising revenue.

  

I suggest the following as a start toward fairness and believe that most of the 99% would accept them.

1. Tax all income at the same rate regardless of source.

..

 

2. Eliminate tax benefits for second homes in every case.

 ..

 

3. Pass the Buffett Rule

 ..

 

4. Tax all Wall Street financial transactions at a rate that will recover, over the next six years, the bailout funds provided financial institutions.

 ..

5. Have a corporate alternative minimum tax that would ensure that all corporations with a profit pay at least some tax.

..

I realize that these steps wouldn't completely solve the debt or deficit problem but they would at least be a start in that direction.

..

Thank you.

..

Sincerely,

Letters to --- National Priorities - Budget

 I'm not sure why you continue to call FICA receipts taxes with the special negative connotation of the term taxes. FICA receipts are fees for the purpose of the safety net for all contributors - do you call highway tolls - taxes? You also combine medicare and SS receipts on the revenue side in your graph but separate them on the spending side - why? I realize that it is difficult to do a clear job of showing budgetary matters but if you're going to include FICA issues as general budgetary issues then you should really make an effort to show all spending issues including tax expenditures which are a much greater quantity and hidden from taxpayer eyes.

With all the current rhetoric about deficits and debt, I would be very interested in a graph showing what the deficit and debt would look like over the past 25 years with SS taken off budget. If the public realized how the working salaried people have paid for the pork of Congress to the tune of $2.5 trillion and hidden the real deficit over that time perhaps we might see some change. All the political rhetoric about the need to 'fix' SS is simply so they don't have to pay back the $2.5 trillion and will have continuing excess receipts as a slush fund - a tremendous transfer of wealth from the FICA paying workers to others. Why should Chinese bond holders have a higher priority for payment than US citizens.

 

I realize that we all see 'facts' from a different perspective but as one of the 99%, I don't think we get our perspective recognized.

Letters to --- WashPost - ASloan - Social Security

 

Mr. Sloan.

Thanks for your article in the WashPost today. The increasing deficit in Social Security is troubling. However, you seem to focus on the outgo rather than the income. What has been the impact of the high unemployment on SS receipts over the past 3 to 4 years? It would seem to me that most of the unemployment is in the range of job income particularly important to SS receipts and surely must have had a significant impact on receipts. Also, what has been the impact of the increasing inequality over the past 20 years? I believe there is strong evidence that almost 90% of the financial benefit from the significant increase in productivity over the past 20 years has gone to corporate upper management and dividends. Surely, if there had been a more equitable distribution of these benefits to the workers involved there would have been a significant increase in SS receipts over the past 20 years and the resulting deficit wouldn't be as great.

  

Then there is also the problem of including SS expenditures in discussions of total governmental spending with general budgetary expenditures. Isn't this a little of comparing apples and oranges? If we had a separate tax of 12.6% for Defense and National Security it might make sense but with its own funding stream why is SS even in the picture? Wouldn't a better analysis/picture of the problem be possible if SS was taken off budget? I realize it might not 'cure' the problem of Congress using excess SS receipts to hide actual budgetary deficits as it has for the past 20 years but wouldn't it be more honest? Why does Congress put a higher priority on repaying Bonds held by Chinese citizens than on SS bonds held by US citizens? Is the real reason for 'fixing' SS so Congress can continue to have excess receipts in order to continue to have their 'slush' fund? Isn't this a transfer of wealth primarily from the working class to other recipients?

 

And then there is the question of since everyone has to pay SS insurance premiums, what is the problem with everyone having to pay healthcare insurance premiums?

 

Anyway, I do enjoy your articles - thanks.

Sincerely,

Letters to --- WashPost - OpEd/Lane - GasPrices

Thanks for your OpEd in today's Post about gas prices being largely independent of government.  However, you seem to put it almost entirely in the realm of supply and demand and market forces, leaving out the significant impact of speculation. Why are prices going up when gasoline demand is at a low currently in this country? Isn't that contrary to the so called free, open market explanation? Why are we exporting significant quantities of gasoline while prices are going up?

...

What would happen to prices if the Government would unexpectedly release oil from the 'reserve' and thus 'hit' the speculators?

...

Anyway, thanks for your OpEd - I always enjoy reading them.

...

Sincerely,

Letters to --- WashPost - Applebaum

Dear Ms. Applebaum:

 I suggest that the US really has no moral credibility to judge the Russians or Chinese. We are number one in the world in assassinations or extra-judicial killing - more commonly called murder - of citizens in other countries. We have caused the deaths of tens if not hundreds of thousands of children in Iraq with our earlier 'sanctions'. We will cause significant harm if not death to thousands of Iranians with our sanctions against them. Oh right - that's just 'collateral damage'.

As the Board of Investigative Journalism has recently documented, we are purposefully killing rescuers and mourners in Afghanistan - hardly 'collateral damage'. We are the cause for Afghans to be in constant fear of their lives with our drones and night raids.

And regarding the supply of weaponry to Syria, we are the number one supplier of weaponry globally including to authoritarian governments.

Please explain our 'standing' to judge.

 

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Letters to --- WashPost Columnists - Parker/Henneberger

Dear ...

...

Total context in journalism is important, so I would appreciate your addressing the following.

...

Why my tax dollars should contribute to discrimination against women?

...

How allowing a religious institution to discriminate against women differs from discrimination against gays or blacks?

...

Why defending my faith isn't important?

...

Why abridging my religious freedom to not support a religious institution other than my own is not important?

...

Thank you.

...

Sincerely,

Letter to --- WashPost - Jobs - Capital - Labor - Corporations - Taxes - Occupy

 

Dear Editors:

In a letter to the Post, Mr. Levy says that the tax code steers capital to the stock market which encourages access to capital for companies that want to expand. It is an embedded fallacy as Wall Street has several trillions of cash and companies aren't expanding nor producing jobs. This is the core basis for the 'Occupy' movement. The stated reason for providing 'privilege' to Wall Street doesn't work for 99% of Americans.

 ...

Why should someone putting his capital at-risk receive more consideration than someone putting his labor at-risk or even life at-risk as a military person.

 ...

Everyone says that dividends are taxed twice. Most money is taxed more than once. When I pay someone to fix my roof, I pay him with money already taxed and he has to pay tax on it again. Why is that different? In one case, someone puts money into a corporation and receives dividends as 'return' for the use of that money. In the other case, someone puts labor into an endeavor and receives money as 'return' for the use of that labor. Why should the 'return' be taxed dfferently? All financial transactions should be taxed equally. 

 ...

Also, since Corporations are to be considered as persons, why shouldn't they have the same tax schedule as persons, including an alternative minimum tax that ensures that every corporation pays some tax?

... 

It is simply absurd that someone playing the Wall Street Casino receives more favorable treatment than someone working in freezing rain, sweltering heat, or any other 'productive' work. It's the new feudal system; single mothers, less educated persons, anyone providing physical labor, and millions of 'common folk' provide the base economy so that the elite nobility on Wall Street can manipulate at the margins and pick the low-hanging fruit.

...

Sincerely,

Letters to --- WashPost - Searching/AlternativeEnergy/WMDs/Exceptualism

 

Dear Editors:

..

Great headline - Politics Powered Decisions on Solyndra - search for alternative energy. I look forward to your story on - Politics Powered Decisions on Iraq - search for WMDs. I suspect the investment in the 'search for alternative energy' was less costly and more useful than the 'search for WMDs'.

..

How about a piece on Politics Powered Decisions on America's Decline - a search for exceptualism? Probably would be more useful and important.

..

Sincerely,