Published: September 29, 2008 11:31 am            

9/28/2008 Letters to the Editor

Unions not the blame for financial debacle



Mr. Earl Pierce pretty well proved my point when he gave all his dates, etc. He is 85 and likely retired when he was 65 in 1988 after working for Bell for 25 years. That means he started there in 1963.

He further states that a janitor made $14 an hour or $29,120 a year, apparently in 1988, after starting work untrained 16 years before at $6 an hour or $12,480 a year.

My mother made $1,500 a year in 1956 teaching the fourth grade with an education degree instead of a union membership. I don’t know what she was making in 1972 after teaching 50 years, but it was probably little more than the janitor’s starting salary.

If he reads my letter today, Mr. Pierce will note that I did not blame the unions for the financial debacle, but lobbyists and Democrats share a large portion of the blame.

“Follow the money” is usually a good strategy. Most of the balance can be blamed on greed — from the financial CEOs down to the greedy home buyers, wanting more than they could afford.

Franklin Raines, former CEO of Fannie Mae and Obama’s current economic adviser, received $90 million in his six years at the helm of Fannie Mae.

Speaking of Democrats, the “Crank” really made a lawyer’s misstatement when he said in his Sept. 21 article that: “The numbers do not lie. When Reagan cut the top marginal tax rates, revenues plummeted, causing the deficit to explode.”

Information from the Heritage Foundation shows that in the 1980 to 1990 period federal tax revenues did plummet in the first years after Carter’s disaster, while Reagan was fighting the Democratic controlled Congress to pass his tax cuts.

But by 1990 revenues had increased an average per year of $102 billion over the 10 year period. Because of Reagan’s cuts stimulating the economy, as McCain plans to do if elected. Observe that using all instead of half the numbers illuminates the Crank’s fabrication.

By 1985 the Democratically controlled Congress had gone on a spending spree that caused the deficit explosion the Crank refers to in his article.

Remember the president does not pass bills nor allocate money, which is Congress’s domain. So I guess the title of his article is correct. He denies the reality supported by facts and substitutes his own Democratic reality based on opinions, fabrications and outright prevarications.

How destructive to the U.S. economy would an Obama presidency be?

Beneath Obama’s flowery rhetoric lies a dangerous economic plan that could wreak havoc on the American economy. He plans to return to high taxes and increased government spending. And says he is absolutely committed to almost doubling the capital gains rate, something easily accomplished with a Democratic Congress.

If Obama is elected, this threat could cause investors to stampede out of the market at the end of this year to secure their profits before he increases the tax rate.

What I worry about, since Sarah Palin entered the race and Republicans started gaining in the polls, is that in some way Sen. Joe Biden will be dumped and replaced by Hillary Clinton to improve the Democrats’ chances of winning the election.

And yes, I will drive my Mazda down to vote Republican.



W.V. Bonds

Cleburne

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.