Letters to the Editor March 2004 It seems to have been unnoticed by political economic analysts that Clinton’s greatest sin, in the eyes of our economic and financial aristocracy, was to create a budget surplus. The Republican ideologues among them were, of course, outraged that he had robbed them of their favorite political bull-whip: the slogan branding the Democrats as “tax and spend liberals” but the real blow was the fiscal threat posed to their class interests by the budget surplus itself. The surplus meant that the US Treasury would be under less pressure to borrow money and the interest rate would fall, limiting the income of the bond holders and the fees of the “law firms” on Wall Street that negotiated the sale of large blocks of each bond issue to them. One should remember that a similar threat at the close of World War Two, posed by a group of progressive members of the House of Representatives, gave rise to the career of Richard Milhous Nixon. The solution, put into action by the management of the Republican Party and the handlers of the current resident of the White House was quite traditional (although brilliant in the eyes of those who profited)—a tax cut so extreme and unbalanced that it would throw the federal budget into deficit and enrich the already wealthy to the extent that they could lend their added wealth to the US Treasury at a well negotiated and comfortable rate of interest. They would be relieved of the pressure to find profitable investments, create employment or take (heavens!) risks. They could devote their energies to creating public opinion, playing (seriously) with politics and social affairs. There is always so much to do when one has a sufficiently high guaranteed income, without the responsibility of actually creating it. Running and ruining the country is so much more fun. This is not a new development. Hierarchical states ruled by aristocracies have always borrowed for their immediate needs—be they wars, roads, or palaces. They typically borrowed from the wealthy, who were often related to and supported the rulers, and were assured, therefore, of a handsome return over time. when the rulers could not borrow enough, they usually levied what they wanted from the middle and lower classes without a promise of return. With the further development of civilization the process was refined. Corporations, including banks, developed to rationalize the process (and to take the blame when needed). America’s “Gilded Age” illustrated the process, as did the “Roaring Twenties.” When the Boom led to Bust, some corporations did undertake capital projects,* but the typical upper class investor in the 1930s loaned money to the federal government that then undertook the needed capital projects, providing needed employment and (like road construction) subsidized sectors of private investment (trucking, auto manufacture, petroleum, etc.). The bond buyers were assured of a steady return without effort or risk and (as Alexander Hamilton put it) had the leisure to devote to “the arts of government.” *The electrification of the Pennsylvania Rail Road is a case in point. Adam Meahan Ohlfahrt Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 On the Internet I read a wonderful letter to the editor in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner (March 23) written by Greg Indigo from Ester. His letter referred to wolf control and democracy in Alaska. I had my husband read it too and his reaction was like mine—WOW! As I have no way of reaching Mr. Indigo, I hope he reads this thank you for "telling it like it is." I had never heard of Ester, Alaska, and thanks to Mr. Indigo I discovered, via the Internet of course, a really neat community with an interesting population. Westport where I live, is somewhat larger but I think it has a few things in common with Ester. We have a large community of artists and writers, we are in the commuting range of a large city, New York, our citizens are known to be outspoken and with an opinion about everything. And just a few days ago we had an unexpected major snow fall. See attached picture. Unlike Ester, the snow has melted and it seems that spring has made its appearance. And that's all I want to say except that I am delighted to have made your acquaintance. Janet Beasley 3/26/05 I sense a wobble, perhaps only a power drunk swagger, but yet the wattle waggles. I’m talking about our head of state perched upon a mountain of thermally sensitive copralite, crowning the glories of America’s myopic mammonocracy, Georgie Boy the Turkey with the Golden Fleece. Now is the time when progressive ideas can be of most use. Forget moderation, the conservatives have. Trying to bring politics back towards center is like moving a building over three inches, lots of work and no real difference. So jump on the band wagon and start your own draconian cause! I’d suggest debtors’ prisons as a chance to imprison more of the nonviolent populace. This would be good for homeland security, and what’s a few more tax dollars if you have the pride in knowing you are getting those freeloaders off the street? Forget the liberal agenda. Join the Republicans and give a big push. A few choice lies spoken with conviction can go a long way toward tipping the rotted apple cart. Vincit Pluria Inveritas P.S.: The realities of global climate change will soon enough melt even the mountain of lies on which the current nondemocratic regime bases its legitimacy. March 31, 2004 I just can’t stand it anymore. The frustration, the idiocy, the denial, the farce. Could I be referring to the Alaska State Legislature? But of course, mon ami! My correspondent, Reverend Dick Heacock recently spoke the truth with great clarity in a newsletter he writes. He noted the comment by Senate Finance committee chairman Gary Wilken, who dismissed the idea of an income tax with “an effort to reinstate the income tax would be dead on arrival in the senate.” [Heacock's emphasis] Sanity seems to be dead in the Senate too, along with any sense of equality, fair play, and all notions of responsible civic leadership. As Dick asks, “Why are our leaders so fixated on flat, sales, head or other tax measures that would require an equal number of dollars from both the richest and the poorest of us?” Well gee, could it be that the rich simply don’t want to pay a fair share to the system which made them rich? Can there really be any other explanation for this absurd denial of reality? They’re just being so noble and seeking equity of debt, right? Na, I don’t think so. As usual, it’s just greed, stubborn naked greed, in all its ugliness. Well, maybe not naked. You can afford good clothes, even if they’re made in Korea, if you get all your re-election money from the oil lobby, VECO, and the rest of the GOP (good oil pimps). If this not be so, pray tell, why won’t the legislature, in a time of fantastically high oil prices, remove the Economic Limit Factor (ELF)? We must get the most for our remaining oil, a fair take, considering what other oil dependent states and nations get. It also happens to be a duty of elected legislators to get the best return for oil and all our resources. It’s in the Constitution, which they’ve all sworn an oath to uphold. David Guttenberg, along with House compatriot Les Gara of Anchorage has submitted a bill to do this (called the Alaska Fair Share Bill). They’re Democrats, so the bill languishes in committee. Perhaps it would see daylight if a reasonable number of Alaskans who are at all awake would press the Republicans to put it on the floor. But nah, that would be responsible, and Constitutionally required, and sane. Who could imagine something so strange happening in what must be the worst legislative session yet? Do I exaggerate? Hardly. Rather, I commiserate with anyone out there who knows this to be true and is utterly saddened by it. We are giving away the one-time treasure of Alaskan oil for well below what we deserve and should demand, and most citizens aren’t even paying attention. Meanwhile one legislator wants to cash out the one good idea we have (the Permanent Fund), while the governor wants to only rob it first, while neglecting the one thing that could make his pre-election promise ring true: re-establishing a fair graduated oil severance tax, or an oil Windfall Equal Sharing Tax. Either will work, and he’d be a hero. Instead, he’s giving away our future. Don’t say I didn’t speak up, Rich Seifert April 8, 2004 There have been a number of letters from Concerned Christian Citizens regarding gay marriage addressed to the Persons Sitting in Darkness. Variously we heard from Ms. Crocker's letter an amazing collection of assertions; that gays’ (sex) acts are perverted, that they can't have children without a member of the opposite sex, by implication that they may think they love each other but they are mistaken, and apparently that the rights gays enjoy under the Constitution are limited and don't include marriage or civil unions. The Person Sitting in Darkness is sure to say, there is something curious about this—curious and unaccountable. While it is true of heterosexual couples acts that generally Tab A is inserted in Slot B, there are times when Tab A is inserted in Slot C, or even D with apparently happy results for all. This is standard fare, and anyone wishing to update their knowledge can take a peek at The Joy of Sex. Now, if it is true that gays are engaging in the same perverted acts as the straights, then gays and straights are both perverted. But this begs the question; if both are perverted, then neither are perverted. Further, Ms. Cocker says "…no matter how much they may ‘love’ each other…". This is sure to confuse the Person Sitting in Darkness. Persons think they love, they feel love, and where permitted they marry. Yet in one damning letter to the editor they learn that they do not actually love. They are in fact bereft and without love. It was perhaps unmerciful of Ms. Cocker not to let the Persons down more gently. Those women who have been impregnated by artificial insemination have done so married or unmarried, with or without a male partner. If procreation, as Ms. Crocker leads us to believe, is the only Christian justification for sex, then a lot of you out there are just plain cheating. If the married heterosexual couples are cheating and having sex for fun instead of procreation, then gay couples will find it unaccountable that they stand condemned for the same thing. The Persons Sitting in Darkness must not be allowed to examine too closely the assertion that they are entitled to fewer rights than Christian Citizens. Until now we've been able to pull this one off. If not for the courts treating all citizens as equal under the law, everything would be simple and happy again, just like the 1950s. The Persons are getting married, and the cops can't stop 'em. This calls for a Bill of Denied Rights, which shall be unto all people. (Oh right, that was the love of God.) I get restricting others people’s rights and the love of God mixed up sometimes, but many people do. Yours,
| ||
 | | |
