Letters 10-24-2016

It’s Obama’s 1984 Several editions ago I concluded a short letter to the editor with an ominous rhetorical flourish: “Welcome to George Orwell’s 1984 and the grand opening of the Federal Department of Truth!” At the time I am sure most of the readers laughed off my comments as right-wing hyperbole. Shame on you for doubting me...

Gun Bans Don’t Work It is said that mass violence only happens in the USA. A lone gunman in a rubber boat, drifted ashore at a popular resort in Tunisia and randomly shot and killed 38 mostly British and Irish tourists. Tunisian gun laws, which are among the most restrictive in the world, didn’t stop this mass slaughter. And in January 2015, two armed men killed 11 and wounded 11 others in an attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. French gun laws didn’t stop these assassins...

Scripps’ Good Deed No good deed shall go unpunished! When Dan Scripps was the 101st District State Representative, he introduced legislation to prevent corporations from contaminating (e.g. fracking) or depleting (e.g. Nestle) Michigan’s water table for corporate profit. There are no property lines in the water table, and many of us depend on private wells for abundant, safe, clean water. In the subsequent election, Dan’s opponents ran a negative campaign almost solely on the misrepresentation that Dan’s good deed was a government takeover of your private water well...

Political Definitions As the time to vote draws near it’s a good time to check into what you stand for. According to Dictionary.com the meanings for liberal and conservative are as follows:

Liberal: Favorable to progress or reform as in political or religious affairs.

Conservative: Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditions and limit change...

Voting Takes A Month? Hurricane Matthew hit the Florida coast Oct. 6, over three weeks before Election Day. Bob Ross (Oct. 17th issue) posits that perhaps evacuation orders from Governor Scott may have had political motivations to diminish turnout and seems to praise Hillary Clinton’s call for Gov. Scott to extend Florida’s voter registration deadline due to evacuations...

Clinton Foundation Facts Does the Clinton Foundation really spend a mere 10 percent (per Mike Pence) or 20 percent (per Reince Priebus) of its money on charity? Not true. Charity Watch gives it an A rating (the same as it gives the NRA Foundation) and says it spends 88 percent on charitable causes, and 12 percent on overhead. Here is the source of the misunderstanding: The Foundation does give only a small percentage of its money to charitable organizations, but it spends far more money directly running a number of programs...

America Needs Change Trump supports our constitution, will appoint judges that will keep our freedoms safe. He supports the partial-birth ban; Hillary voted against it. Regardless of how you feel about Trump, critical issues are at stake. Trump will increase national security, monitor refugee admissions, endorse our vital military forces while fighting ISIS. Vice-presidential candidate Mike Pence will be an intelligent asset for the country. Hillary wants open borders, increased government regulation, and more demilitarization at a time when we need strong military defenses...

My Process For No I will be voting “no” on Prop 3 because I am supportive of the process that is in place to review and approve developments. I was on the Traverse City Planning Commission in the 1990s and gained an appreciation for all of the work that goes into a review. The staff reviews the project and makes a recommendation. The developer then makes a presentation, and fellow commissioners and the public can ask questions and make comments. By the end of the process, I knew how to vote for a project, up or down. This process then repeats itself at the City Commission...

Regarding Your Postcard If you received a “Vote No” postcard from StandUp TC, don’t believe their lies. Prop 3 is not illegal. It won’t cost city taxpayers thousands of dollars in legal bills or special elections. Prop 3 is about protecting our downtown -- not Munson, NMC or the Commons -- from a future of ugly skyscrapers that will diminish the very character of our downtown...

Vote Yes It has been suggested that a recall or re-election of current city staff and Traverse City Commission would work better than Prop 3. I disagree. A recall campaign is the most divisive, costly type of election possible. Prop 3, when passed, will allow all city residents an opportunity to vote on any proposed development over 60 feet tall at no cost to the taxpayer...

Yes Vote Explained A “yes” vote on Prop 3 will give Traverse City the right to vote on developments over 60 feet high. It doesn’t require votes on every future building, as incorrectly stated by a previous letter writer. If referendums are held during general elections, taxpayers pay nothing...

Beware Trump When the country you love have have served for 33 years is threatened, you have an obligation and a duty to speak out. Now is the time for all Americans to speak out against a possible Donald Trump presidency. During the past year Trump has been exposed as a pathological liar, a demagogue and a person who is totally unfit to assume the presidency of our already great country...

Picture Worth 1,000 Words Nobody disagrees with the need for affordable housing or that a certain level of density is dollar smart for TC. The issue is the proposed solution. If you haven’t already seen the architect’s rendition for the site, please Google “Pine Street Development Traverse City”...

Living Wage, Not Tall Buildings Our community deserves better than the StandUp TC “vote no” arguments. They are not truthful. Their yard signs say: “More Housing. Less Red Tape. Vote like you want your kids to live here.” The truth: More housing, but for whom? At what price..

Home · Articles · News · Other Opinions · The paycheck problem
. . . .

The paycheck problem

Stephen Tuttle - November 1st, 2010
The paycheck problem
As the campaigns finally, and mercifully, come to an end (and let’s
take a moment here to bow our heads in reverential thanksgiving for
whoever that blessed soul was who invented the “Mute” button on our
remote controls), there is a fairly startling issue politicians of all
stripes chose to ignore. And with good reason – no one has a clue how
to fix it, although most agree it’s a serious and growing problem.
Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize winner in economics and columnist for the
New York Times, calls it “The Great Divergence.”
The problem here is the growing disparity between the very richest
Americans and the rest of us.
Economists have been keeping statistics on income disparities for a
very long time. Since the financial crash of 1929 and the subsequent
nightmare of the Great Depression, the income of those of us who
occupy the bottom 90% of the financial ladder has been slowly but
surely increasing. In 1950, for example, the bottom 90% earned 64.4%
of the income out there. By 1980, that figure had crept up to 65.4%,
maintaining a trend in which the bottom 90% was actually catching up
to the top 10%. Then it just stopped.
By 2008 that number had plummeted to 51.7%. So the top 10% of income
earners were earning nearly half of all income. And that 10%
controlled even more of the country’s wealth.
The last time we had such a difference between the haves and have-nots
was 1928.
How did such a thing happen?
The temptation is to blame it on Ronald Reagan and his unproven supply
side economics. By restructuring the tax codes Reagan relieved the
tax burden of our richest citizens, anticipating the additional funds
at their disposal would be used for investing, inventing and consumer
spending, all of which would have had a positive “trickle-down” impact
on the rest of us. The first part of the equation worked swell – the
rich got richer. But the only thing that trickled down to the rest of
us was financial woe. The economy did not expand; although,
ironically, the size of government at all levels did.
But there is no straight-line correlation between Reagan and today’s
mess. To the extent he shares some blame, he is certainly not alone.
After eight years of Reagan, we had four years of Bush the Elder,
eight years of Clinton, eight years of Bush the Lesser and now a
couple years of Obama.
During those 30 years we’ve had 20 years of Republicans in the White
House but about the same number of years of Democratic control of
Congress. In all those three decades, the only period during which
the poorest 90% made some small gains versus the top 10% were during
the Clinton administration – a Democratic president and a Republican
Capitalism, even the modified and regulated version we now use, will
always have some income disparity. An integral part of the system is
to reward investors, entrepreneurs and risk-takers. The rewards can
be enormous, especially for those already rich.
In fact, the really, really rich have been doing extraordinarily well
the last couple of years while the rest of us hung on, or worse. In,
2008, those at the very top of the income scale in the U.S., who made
$50 million a year or more, averaged $91.2 million a year. Last year,
though the number in the group shrank, their average annual income had
increased to a truly staggering $518.8 million.
Though there are only 74 individuals in that rarefied income air,
they make as much money as the 19 million Americans at the bottom of
the income ladder. That’s right – the top 74 income earners make as
much money -- almost $40 billion -- as the bottom 19 million income
Most economists agree this is an unsustainable disparity. As the gap
between the very few at the top and growing number of us at or near
the bottom increases, the economy continues to stagnate. Small
business start-ups and expansion, the backbone of the Michigan and
national economies, continue to diminish as what little capital is
available is controlled by a relative handful of our richest
The solution? Good luck finding one.
We know that attempting to redistribute the wealth through onerous
taxation will not work. Returning to the higher progressive tax rates
that existed prior to Reagan’s presidency is tempting but a practical
political impossibility. Congress was unwilling to allow the fairly
modest Bush tax cuts to expire on the very rich, so bumping them up
even more seems incredibly unlikely. The very concept of forced
wealth redistribution is antithetical to the entire idea of
capitalism, even our version of it. The truth is we haven’t yet found
that Goldilocks taxation level that isn’t too much or too little but
just right for every income level.
On the other hand, allowing capitalism to run unbridled seems to lead
us to financial calamities over and over. There must be some
reasonable regulation and equitable taxation or the system doesn’t
work for the majority.
We encourage and allow the acquisition of wealth. We accept that some
people are going to be much wealthier than most of us. But we’re not
likely to accept for much longer the reality of one-tenth of the
population making half the income and controlling 80% of the overall
We’ll see if our newly elected Congress has an answer. If not, those
of us in the bottom 90% will eventually get tired of sniffing around
under the table looking for scraps and demand a little bit bigger
share of the financial meal for ourselves. That will be a bad day for
the politicians who haven’t bothered to try and figure it out already.

  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5