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 · Bad start to a new...
. . . .

Bad start to a new beginning

Stephan Tuttle - November 22nd, 2010
Here we go.
The co-chairs of the budget deficit commission, former Clinton Chief
of Staff Erskine Bowles, and Allan Simpson, a former GOP Senator from
Wyoming, have created quite a stir with their preliminary report on
reducing the federal deficit. The report is both dramatic and
pragmatic. It is also a stark reminder of just how difficult this is
going to be.
Nothing the commission does has the force of law. It provides
recommendations and those already put forward by Bowles and Simpson
are nothing more than preliminary ideas. But illuminating,
The proposals are both broad and specific – raising the eligibility
age for Social Security, massive cuts in defense spending (including
the bloated procurement process), a reduction in the federal workforce
through attrition, significant reductions in the size of federal
departments and programs that will result in additional federal
workforce reductions, a three-year wage and benefit freeze for all
federal employees except the military, significant reductions in
income tax rates, the elimination of Congressional earmarks.
They also call for premiums to be charged for Medicare coverage, a 15
cent per gallon increase in the federal gas tax, ending the home
mortgage interest tax deduction, ending the tuition tax credits,
ending virtually all tax deductions and credits for individuals and
reducing corporate tax rates.
There’s much more, of course, but you get the idea. About 75% of the
deficit reduction the commission proposes comes from cuts of one kind
or another and the other 25% comes from tax and fee increases.
The plan here is to try and stop a runaway train of deficit spending.
The commission’s suggestions, according to them, will reduce spending
from an unsustainable 24% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP – the
value of everything we produce) to 21% by 2015. That is still slightly
above historical levels but would at least be tenable. It would
reduce the deficit to just 2% of GDP in the same time frame, a level
that is manageable.
So, how did our new budget-slashing, fire breathing members of
Congress respond? Or the stodgy incumbents? No politicians seemed to
like it very much.
Republicans on the right howled at the notion of any kind of tax
increases for any reason. It seems even considering the Bowles-Simpson
plan is a violation of their sacrosanct no-new-taxes pledge. Never
mind that on balance the vast majority of individuals and corporations
would be paying significantly less in taxes than they do now. Doesn’t
matter. They believe they can cherry pick social programs with which
they have some philosophical issue, chop away at them and everything
will be fine. They are wrong.
As for the Democrats on the left, their howls of anguish were even
louder. Cuts to social programs? Oh, my God. What about the poor
children? No, no, we can’t accept any cuts to much of anything. They
believe they can fix the budget mess on the backs of the wealthy and
corporations. They are wrong.
The loudest whining of all came from the special interest groups that
have been feeding at the public trough in porcine splendor one way or
another for decades. They’ve already unleashed their lobbyist hounds,
40,000 strong, telling us there must be some other way.
But, if we’re serious about reducing the deficit, there is no other
way. None.
Unfortunately, Congress, having long ago lost touch with reality, will
do nothing but bloviate and then dislocate their collective shoulders
patting themselves on the back after making some insignificant cut
somewhere that doesn’t do much of anything. Like ending earmarks, an
excellent and necessary bit of political stagecraft that will be
popular but the impact on the deficit will be less than one-tenth of
one percent.
Nor can the Federal Reserve fix this by constantly printing more
money. In fact, they have been wrong on almost everything for a very
long time. They didn’t see the tech bubble coming, didn’t see the
housing bubble coming, assured us the entire sub-prime catastrophe
wouldn’t happen, didn’t see any problems on Wall Street and were quite
convinced that spending $2 trillion dollars we didn’t have for various
stimulus programs would fix everything. They were wrong on every
The Fed has now flummoxed two presidents with their mystifying
economic gobbledegook and equally mystifying decisions or lack
thereof. It’s clear they not only don’t know what they’re doing but
their efforts have consistently made things worse. Sometimes their
actions defy common sense and include unsavory overtones.
Consider the following: The Fed, which controls the flow of money,
recently announced they are going to purchase $600 billion in Treasury
bonds. They will do this because they fear deflation and would rather
cause inflation which they believe will increase job growth. (Don’t
ask – the Fed and common sense are not related.) The treasury note
transaction will be handled by the New York branch of the Federal
Reserve. These notes can be purchased directly from the U.S. Treasury
Department at face value. Alas, we’ll be purchasing these notes
through Goldman Sachs and paying fees. Oh, yeah. The head of the New
York branch of the Federal Reserve? That’s right. A former partner
at Goldman Sachs.
With the Bowles-Simpson trial balloon we have at least a preliminary
proposal on the table that actually addresses the deficits. It
requires sacrifices from nearly everyone, as it should. It requires
political compromise in order to achieve a greater good, as it should.
Instead of working together, as the public wants, and embracing these
proposals as an excellent place from which we could start, both the
left and right have responded with great wailing and gnashing of
We’re left with the same vapid polemics and opaque rhetoric that
befouled our airwaves and souls during the campaigns. Our “new”
Congress, even before they’re sworn in, is looking, sounding and
acting pretty much like the old Congress.
Our new beginning is off to a bad start.

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