Column ignores facts and is based on weak grounds
To the Daily:
First, I want readers to take note of the 22nd word of Jason Pesick’s column (Republican Party betrays America, 7/7/03). It says “Voters,” not “The Republican Party.” That means that voters decided to remove the politicians. If anyone had any inkling of the tendencies of Southern states, it is the propensity to propagate and support the idea of states’ rights. Do the South and the flag have a racist history? Undoubtedly so. Do I abhor the symbol? You bet. But there are instances where intervention by the government is necessary (slavery, human rights abuses, etc.) and when the preference of the state presides.
Second, the title “Republican Party betrays America” is so brazenly dishonest, considering the past decade. Unless Mr. Pesick has forgotten the ’90s, it was the Dems. and Clinton and Co. that allowed scores of terrorist attacks, including the USS Cole and the embassy and army barracks bombings, to go relatively unchallenged. And lest anyone forget, it was former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former President Jimmy Carter who “secured” a non-proliferation deal with North Korea. Kim Jong Il must have forgotten that, since he’s been trying to blackmail the U.S. into giving him more money. Some blame this action on President Bush’s “axis of evil” speech, but even if there wasn’t North Korea’s admittance that the 1994 deal was broken years ago, could anyone honestly believe that within less than a year of the speech a poverty-ridden country cooks up a nuclear weapon out of the blue? Maybe, but I doubt it. And while we’re on the subject of betrayal, let us not neglect to mention former Attorney General Janet Reno’s little endeavors: namely Waco and sending Elian Gonzalez back to “oh-wait-it’s-still-a-dictatorship” Cuba.
Some final notes: First, I would never offer up some short pithy title saying, “Democratic Party betrays America.” It’s too simplistic and too childish. Second, I would advise Mr. Pesick that if he’s going to characterize an entire party based on certain people’s’ actions with which he has taken disagreement, he had better come armed with more than pea shooters and a swooning devotion to the Kennedys.
The letter writer is a former staff writer for The Michigan Review.
Professor’s article misleading and inaccurate
To the Daily:
A grossly inaccurate article appeared in the recent “Spring LSA” on Social Security. The misinformed author was Professor Saul Hymans of the University’s Economics Department.
Professor Hymans stated, “The Federal Government is not spending the Social Security surplus. In fact, nobody is; it’s setting there fully invested and earning interest … ” Completely untrue! All of the surplus has been spent for operations and non-negotiable Special Treasury Securities, nothing but IOUs, placed in the Trust Fund as an addition to the national debt, a taxpayer obligation. If there were a surplus, the national debt should have shown a decrease. This has not happened since 1960, which was the last year the Treasury Department records show federal income exceeding expenses with a decrease in the national debt.
Professor Hymans adds to the above misinformation with the grossly inaccurate statement that Social Security is funded with a “5.3% tax levy matched by an employer.” Again, completely untrue! Social Security is funded completely by the employer when payment is made to “Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax” (line 6 & 7 Form 941).
Again, the tax is not 5.3 percent but 12.4 percent of the employee’s Social Security wages for O.A.S.I. and 2.9 percent for D.I. In addition, half of this amount is deducted from the employee’s paycheck, thus making part of the payroll tax subject to the employee’s personal income tax.
What a deception! And from an economics professor at the University.