Email, Hate Mail and Comments from Readers

In this week’s Email, Hate Mail and Comments column Odin the Intellectual asks: “Does this racist twit ever write anything serious?” although it’s not immediately clear that he’s not talking about himself; Henry says that we have to use a better message; and Lilly? Well, Lilly is just her usual self.    

Tibby wrote: In the liberal mind you have no right to work. Which may help explain why they believe you have a right to welfare and healthcare. Liberals love rights that someone else has to pay for. – in response to my column The SEIU NLRB Serial Job Killer   

Dear Tibby,

That’s right. Only the government, combined with union membership can create jobs in the minds of Democrats. I think the worst thing about Obama is his fronting for unions and getting them involved in the economy again.

Unions are anti-job creation. They represent people who have jobs, not people who want jobs. Unions will always favor higher wages and benefits for fewer workers. It they don’t, they can’t possibly be doing their job of representing the best interest of their members.

Unions ran this country into the ground by the 1970s. Let’s not let them do it again.        

Henry wrote: We as conservatives are not going to be heard or listened to if we don't find a way to get out our message using the MSM...2012 is too important to not try every possible tactic available to us...I think we have a reoccurring problem and that is how we frame our opposition to policies, spending. – in response to my column The SEIU NLRB Serial Job Killer  

Dear Henry,

Agreed. The words we use are very important. I’m not completely convinced that Frank Luntz has the whole thing wired, but he does have some interesting ideas about how to frame the debate.

Recommended

Why Everyone Thinks Biden Had an Accident in Front of the Press Corps Matt Vespa

Advertisement

Obama uses words- rather misuses them- very effectively. For example, in the budget debate, the White House has gotten away from the term “tax increases” and used the term “increases in revenue.” And the mainstream media has gone along with it.

I think that what Obama does is cheap. That kind of stuff eventually catches up with politicians when people realize that they can’t tell the truth about anything.

That said, there are things the GOP could do better.  

For example, the mass of American people don’t greatly care about the size of the government one way or another. What they do care about is whether they are getting their money’s worth. They hate the idea, especially when times are tough, that the government would spend $250,000 studying shrimp running on a treadmill.

As conservatives we sometimes make the mistake of thinking that people will just automatically agree with us that government is too big, and that the Constitution is in danger, etc.

A classic example was Sharron Angle when she ran against Harry Reid for US Senate in Nevada in 2010. Nevada had the highest unemployment in any state, yet Angle kept talking about Constitutional issues instead of jobs and economy.              

Dianne wrote: Clinton raised taxes and the result was 23 million jobs created during his time in office. Bush cut taxes and created 3 million jobs during his tenure. There is no data to support the idea that the rich give people jobs when they have the money to do so.– in response to my column Don't Do That Debt Deal

Dear Dianne,

About once a month I have to correct another liberal spouting the myth that the economy grew under Clinton because of tax increases. Since I refute if so often though I only have to use Google to find, copy and then paste my standard reply to this myth.

The reasons the economy grew under the late part of the Clinton administration was because of cuts in capital gains taxes, not because of tax increases.

This from my friends at American Thinker:

The effects of increasing taxes on Treasury receipts can be seen in the Clinton and Democrat-controlled congressional tax increase of 1993, one of the largest in history. Despite a more robust job market following a recession, the 1993 tax increase didn't accomplish what Democrats expected. The tax increases added very little to treasury receipts despite their magnitude. Reports from the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Internal Revenue Service all agree.

In fact, the balanced budgets of the Clinton years didn't occur until after a Republican Congress passed and the president reluctantly signed a 1997 tax bill that lowered the capital gains rate from 28% to 20%, added a child tax credit, and established higher limits on tax exclusion for IRAs and estates.

Michael Bowler wrote: Remember, the TEA partiers are considered to be unwitting fools by the Republican establishment, moreover fools with whom the establishment is embarrassed to be associated. We are dealing with an establishment ruling class, they want you to support them and shut up.– in response to my column Don't Do That Debt Deal 

Dear Michael,

I have to take you to task a bit here.

Sure there is some tension between Tea Party types and “establishment” Republicans.

But I wouldn’t take it as far as you have Michael. For the most part the GOP has welcomed the Tea Party people into the ranks and has supported its candidates. I know because I’ve worked with both sides.

The GOP and the Tea Party are on the same side. And we should all be doing more to foster good will, without of course giving up on principles.     

Lilly wrote: Don't you suppose that under President Palin or President Bachmann we would hear plenty of "Blame Obama"? -in response to my column President What's-His-Name

Dear Lilly,

That depends on the issue. If the issue is the economy, no, frankly I don’t think you’d hear much of that. There isn’t a lot that needs to be done to restore faith in the greatest economic juggernaut the world has seen, once a conservative is in the White House.

If we have a conservative in the White House, I could see the Dow double by the end of her first term with about 8 million real jobs created.     

However, if you’re talking about a war dragging out in Libya, or Iran testing a nuclear device or Israel having to fight a coalition of Arab nations, then yes, it will be “Blame Obama” as it rightly should be.        

JRG3 wrote: Obama has the best administration that Wall Street can buy. He's not a populist. He's not the little guy's president. He's not the minority's president. The middle class and minority have suffered under Obama. He's a wealthy man who mingles with the wealthy. The Hollywood uber rich, the Wall Street uber rich, they all donate to his campaigns.– in response to my column President What's-His-Name

Dear JRG3,

I don’t understand the progressive infatuation with Obama. He’s bought and paid for, and the results can be seen on Wall Street. His administration is riddled with people who take advantage of the revolving door between government and Wall Street.

But liberals have always been more of ends versus means kind of folks anyway. The reason why progressives sold out the labor movement to the Mafia in the 1920s is because the US didn’t have a serious Communist Party to sell out to and the mob was the next best thing.      

Odin wrote: Does this racist twit ever write anything serious? Obama is a "millstone hanging around the neck of the U.S. economy" because a poll or two suggest Americans blame him for the country's economic problems? – in response to my column President What's-His-Name

Dear Odin,

<This space left intentionally blank>

Macroman wrote: Ransom is wrong about Social Security. SS is not a Ponzi scheme and was not doomed to fail initially. Ponzi is a closed-loop scheme that must fail because it turns back on itself. SS is failing now because it has been expanded in unstable ways and there has been an unforeseeable demographic shift toward fewer children that has greatly reduced the ratio of workers to retired people.– in response to my column Broke at the Beginning 

Dear Macroman,

It sure is a Ponzi scheme.

Social Security requires a greater number of people putting new money into the system rather than a typical “insurance” or investment scheme, which only requires that the money that goes into the system generate a sufficient return to meet obligations.

You yourself admit it when you say that the problem with Social Security is that we aren’t having enough babies, i.e. new suckers, to support the system. That’s a Ponzi scheme for us regular working folks.

I don’t know what economists like you call it, but perhaps part of the trouble is that economists can’t even recognize a Ponzi scheme when they see one.  

We have the same problem with government budgeting. Government economists never see a recession. And then when one comes along, their budget projections are way off and we are told we have to raise taxes. Economists, for some reason, always think that everything grows at a steady pace. But as we know from real-world experience, that’s just not true.