President Obama is urging Israel to give up all the territory they acquired during the war in 1967 with Egypt, Jordan and Syria. This war was the third time Arab nations had attempted to eliminate the Jewish state. The forces were gathering. The United Nations Peacekeepers were told to leave. Shipping lanes critical for Israel’s survival were closed. In desperation all civilian men were recalled to active service and Israel attacked first. Gaza, the West Bank, the Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula as well as Jerusalem became a part of Israel. Later the Sinai was returned to Egypt but the rest were kept.
Anyone with an ounce of sense looking at the borders that existed before the war would recognize that the country was vulnerable to attack. Only the skill and determination of the Israeli citizens averted a tragedy. Don’t think for a moment that the Jews would not be slaughtered if overrun. Each war that has been thrust on them amounted to survival. Technology has advanced considerably since 1967. In my opinion a sudden strike would be devastating. As the nation suffered, I also believe I can state that the nations attacking would also be destroyed by the nuclear arsenal that Israel possesses.
Israel does not want this and therefore have rejected the proposition of President Obama. Israel will also never negotiate with terrorists as Hamas has proven to be over the decades.
I have a thought to share with our President. To show his sincerity I believe he should propose returning Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Southern California back to Mexico. After all, these territories were taken from Mexico when they were considerably weaker than America. What is right for the goose should also be right for the gander, as the old saying goes.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Sunday, May 1, 2011
A book report
Eisenhower
Soldier and President
By: Stephen E. Ambrose
Stephen Ambrose has written many historical books. I consider him one of the best. When I was informed about this new book, I immediately purchased it, even though I have read other books on the life of Dwight Eisenhower. I was not disappointed. It did advance my knowledge and understanding of the great contributions to our country and the world of this special human being. Rather than my usual assessment of a book I have chosen to just let the author speak for himself.
“His greatest successes came in foreign policy, and the related area of national defense spending. By making peace in Korea, and avoiding war thereafter for the next seven and one-half years, and by holding down, almost single-handedly, the pace of the arms race, he achieved his major accomplishments. ----he rebuffed Symington and the Pentagon and the JCS and the AEC and the military-industrial complex. And no one knows how many lives he saved by ending the war in Korea and refusing to enter many others, despite a half-dozen and more unanimous recommendations that he go to war.”
In my opinion only Ike with his WWII record could have held back the war lovers. Any President without his credentials would have been considered soft.
He was adamant about the need to balance the budget and was successful in achieving that goal while Americans enjoyed prosperity as never before.
This is a very readable book, extremely interesting with many insights into his decision making process. His party expected him to reverse the 16 years of control by the other party but he took the best of both and formed alliances to assure the steady progress the country enjoyed. President Eisenhower is on my short list of the greatest Presidents in our history.
Jack B. Walters
April 30, 2011
Soldier and President
By: Stephen E. Ambrose
Stephen Ambrose has written many historical books. I consider him one of the best. When I was informed about this new book, I immediately purchased it, even though I have read other books on the life of Dwight Eisenhower. I was not disappointed. It did advance my knowledge and understanding of the great contributions to our country and the world of this special human being. Rather than my usual assessment of a book I have chosen to just let the author speak for himself.
“His greatest successes came in foreign policy, and the related area of national defense spending. By making peace in Korea, and avoiding war thereafter for the next seven and one-half years, and by holding down, almost single-handedly, the pace of the arms race, he achieved his major accomplishments. ----he rebuffed Symington and the Pentagon and the JCS and the AEC and the military-industrial complex. And no one knows how many lives he saved by ending the war in Korea and refusing to enter many others, despite a half-dozen and more unanimous recommendations that he go to war.”
In my opinion only Ike with his WWII record could have held back the war lovers. Any President without his credentials would have been considered soft.
He was adamant about the need to balance the budget and was successful in achieving that goal while Americans enjoyed prosperity as never before.
This is a very readable book, extremely interesting with many insights into his decision making process. His party expected him to reverse the 16 years of control by the other party but he took the best of both and formed alliances to assure the steady progress the country enjoyed. President Eisenhower is on my short list of the greatest Presidents in our history.
Jack B. Walters
April 30, 2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
Letter in support of a flat tax
Representative Steve Court
Dear Sir,
This will be one of the few letters of support I assume, you will receive in regard to your Flat Tax proposal. I, of course, do not have the inside information to determine if 2.1% is the proper number, but I have long supported the concept. Just by taking the time to look at a tax form whether Federal or State should convince any serious person that they are riddled with a myriad of loopholes, all placed I am sure with the best of intentions to aid one group or another.
In the 80’s I accepted a position as Director of General Services for the State of Iowa. I tried to convince the Governor and the Director of revenue that the State tax should be simplified. I shared copies of my personal tax forms from the years I lived in Canada as a manager of a Firestone plant. Quite simply after figuring out your taxes owed there was a multiplier line near the end of the form to determine how much would go to the Province, or in our case State. It was different for each Province and subject to change as needed. The point is that this was not additional tax but a portion to go to the Province. No separate form was required. What I had proposed was to do the same in Iowa which could be done very simply by enclosing a copy of your Federal form and multiplying the State tax owed as you had proposed.
One benefit would be the immediate reduction in the staff of the Dept. of Revenue. Those people who now open and review the returns would no longer be needed. Any time State employees can be reduced should be welcome.
When Steve Forbes proposed a flat tax for the Federal government I was in favor. As I recall he had a threshold which would have exempted $35,000 or thereabouts. Even this year at the opening of Congress there was discussion about simplifying the tax code. There is only one word to describe the code and that is abominable.
While I like the idea that everyone pays some amount to be part of this great country. Maybe the only way you can succeed is to exempt the lowest income groups. If that is what it takes then I support.
It is interesting to me that the Democratic representatives are using this to blast the Republicans and no doubt will encourage throwing out members like you. It is so tragic to me that this must be continuous warfare. The editorial writers at the Arizona Daily Star have certainly labeled you and your colleagues. Reading the letters to the editor today must make them extremely happy.
My hope is that you do not walk away from this and thru education and other means strive to overcome the bad press.
One final thought, supposedly the richest among us would have their taxes reduced by large amounts. That I believe is a falsehood. Tax shelters abound of every conceivable kind to protect the earnings of the rich. Having a tax deduction for a half million dollar mortgage is one example. I don’t own a home. Many have paid off their mortgages, many others rent. There are no tax breaks for these people.
Good luck, don’t despair,
Jack B. Walters
March 30, 2011.
Dear Sir,
This will be one of the few letters of support I assume, you will receive in regard to your Flat Tax proposal. I, of course, do not have the inside information to determine if 2.1% is the proper number, but I have long supported the concept. Just by taking the time to look at a tax form whether Federal or State should convince any serious person that they are riddled with a myriad of loopholes, all placed I am sure with the best of intentions to aid one group or another.
In the 80’s I accepted a position as Director of General Services for the State of Iowa. I tried to convince the Governor and the Director of revenue that the State tax should be simplified. I shared copies of my personal tax forms from the years I lived in Canada as a manager of a Firestone plant. Quite simply after figuring out your taxes owed there was a multiplier line near the end of the form to determine how much would go to the Province, or in our case State. It was different for each Province and subject to change as needed. The point is that this was not additional tax but a portion to go to the Province. No separate form was required. What I had proposed was to do the same in Iowa which could be done very simply by enclosing a copy of your Federal form and multiplying the State tax owed as you had proposed.
One benefit would be the immediate reduction in the staff of the Dept. of Revenue. Those people who now open and review the returns would no longer be needed. Any time State employees can be reduced should be welcome.
When Steve Forbes proposed a flat tax for the Federal government I was in favor. As I recall he had a threshold which would have exempted $35,000 or thereabouts. Even this year at the opening of Congress there was discussion about simplifying the tax code. There is only one word to describe the code and that is abominable.
While I like the idea that everyone pays some amount to be part of this great country. Maybe the only way you can succeed is to exempt the lowest income groups. If that is what it takes then I support.
It is interesting to me that the Democratic representatives are using this to blast the Republicans and no doubt will encourage throwing out members like you. It is so tragic to me that this must be continuous warfare. The editorial writers at the Arizona Daily Star have certainly labeled you and your colleagues. Reading the letters to the editor today must make them extremely happy.
My hope is that you do not walk away from this and thru education and other means strive to overcome the bad press.
One final thought, supposedly the richest among us would have their taxes reduced by large amounts. That I believe is a falsehood. Tax shelters abound of every conceivable kind to protect the earnings of the rich. Having a tax deduction for a half million dollar mortgage is one example. I don’t own a home. Many have paid off their mortgages, many others rent. There are no tax breaks for these people.
Good luck, don’t despair,
Jack B. Walters
March 30, 2011.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Government Shutdown Looms
Neither party is serious about the deficit.
Here is a thought which so far has eluded them; the current cost of supporting the war in Afghanistan is $2 billion/week or $104 billion/ year. Add to that the cost of Iraq and Libya plus our permanent bases in the Middle East I am sure the above cost could be doubled or more.
In addition, military aid given too many countries out of money we don’t have but must borrow from China makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
No politician has the courage or the good sense to suggest the above as they would be labeled weak on defense. What a joke. These adventures which cannot be funded are destroying the solvency of America. Who will come to aid us when our currency is worthless?
Jack B. Walters
Here is a thought which so far has eluded them; the current cost of supporting the war in Afghanistan is $2 billion/week or $104 billion/ year. Add to that the cost of Iraq and Libya plus our permanent bases in the Middle East I am sure the above cost could be doubled or more.
In addition, military aid given too many countries out of money we don’t have but must borrow from China makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
No politician has the courage or the good sense to suggest the above as they would be labeled weak on defense. What a joke. These adventures which cannot be funded are destroying the solvency of America. Who will come to aid us when our currency is worthless?
Jack B. Walters
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Chinese leaders could not be happier
Letter to the Editor
Every time we drop a guided bomb on a truck or tank in Libya they smile, knowing that is more wasted money being spent by America as we go further down the drain toward bankruptcy.
While Boehner and Reed huddle together trying to find agreement on which domestic program to cut the saga continues as we exhaust ourselves spending on our foolish wars in the Mid East. Case in point, in an article this morning we learn that there is an agency with 1,900 employees dedicated to finding solutions to prevent deaths from roadside bombs. They have spent nearly 17 billion to date with no results. The death and wounded numbers have increased from 270 in 2008 to 3,366 in 2010.
Here is a novel idea. Bring our people home from this cursed region. If we did that there would be no more deaths of our soldiers.
Jack B. Walters
Every time we drop a guided bomb on a truck or tank in Libya they smile, knowing that is more wasted money being spent by America as we go further down the drain toward bankruptcy.
While Boehner and Reed huddle together trying to find agreement on which domestic program to cut the saga continues as we exhaust ourselves spending on our foolish wars in the Mid East. Case in point, in an article this morning we learn that there is an agency with 1,900 employees dedicated to finding solutions to prevent deaths from roadside bombs. They have spent nearly 17 billion to date with no results. The death and wounded numbers have increased from 270 in 2008 to 3,366 in 2010.
Here is a novel idea. Bring our people home from this cursed region. If we did that there would be no more deaths of our soldiers.
Jack B. Walters
Saturday, March 26, 2011
New Deal or Raw Deal by Burton Folsom, Jr.-a book report
The author is a professor of history at Hillsdale College. He is a highly respected historian. I was given a copy of this book and another entitled “The New Deal” which includes thoughts of eight authors including Professor Folsom.
The occasion was a visit to Tucson by Mrs. Ellen Donovan, the Executive Director of the Founders Campaign. I have been receiving the monthly copies of Hillsdale’s publication Imprimus since the mid 70’s. I was recovering from pneumonia at the time and a friend gave me a copy to read and enrolled my name on the mailing list. I enjoyed reading it and the hundreds of copies since. I was also invited to attend a two day seminar last year in Tucson. I admire the college’s commitment to excellence and in particular adhering to the principles as outlined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. All students are required to take a course with this as the subject. To maintain integrity the college refuses all funds from the Federal Government. It is able to do so thru the contributions of like minded supporters. During our breakfast session I enjoyed our conversation. It was a good give and take. I was able to present my ideas and in fact gave Mrs. Donovan a copy of my latest book “Still Angry”. She later wrote that she enjoyed reading. Feeling full of myself I later mailed her copies of my first two books. I also took the occasion to continue contributing financially.
Realizing that Mr. Folsom’s book would be negative, I expressed that I would read them, but knew I would not enjoy it as FDR was my boyhood hero. I was 13 when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. He was our trusted leader. We had full confidence that under his leadership that we as a nation would prevail over our enemies. The record shows that this was true. I was too young to have knowledge of the “New Deal”, but remember chills would run up and down my spine as I listened to his “Fireside Chats”. His charisma and enthusiasm calmed the nation and galvanized all of us to work together in our common cause. Except for the too few years of John F. Kennedy’s presidency no other President has been able to create solidarity as did FDR. I even exclude President Reagan. He was a good leader but he did not create the same unity of purpose of Americans.
This book only briefly covered WWII. It was mostly about the 30’s starting with President Hoover and then FDR. It chronicles many programs which were not as effective as they should have been. I will not argue with the facts as presented. The conversations reported undoubtedly took place and the failure of some of his programs did occur.
In stating my comments I want to start by suggesting that Professor Folsom is younger than I and therefore whatever information he possessed to publish this book was garnered from other sources. It is immediately evident that for whatever reason he started this project with an intense dislike of FDR. He starts by pointing out that he came from a wealthy family, was an average student or athlete. FDR’s passion it seems was politics which started at an early age. The author makes the point that FDR was a liar and had a mistress and therefore unworthy of the office of President. My response is that FDR liked to use stories of made up people to drive home a point similar, if I may be so bold, as Jesus Christ did with his parables. Those were not true stories, they were meant to drive home a message. As to the mistress, I will not fill up these pages by listing the many other Presidents who transgressed in a similar vain. My position on this subject is that we are all earthly creatures with needs and wants that need to be fulfilled one way or another. In FDR’s situation his marriage was for convenience, not love, at least not of a physical kind. I judge a person, not by indiscretions, but by deeds. The ultimate answer rests on whether the world was a better place because of that person’s effort. In my opinion FDR certainly qualifies.
When he took office America was in a deep depression partly as a result of the extravagant policies of president Hoover. Of particular concern were the extremely high tariffs enacted the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. The direct result was retaliation from the other major countries. FDR campaigned against it. The author’s dissatisfaction with FDR was the length of time he took to lower tariffs. He tried a country by country approach which while effective was not done as quickly as it perhaps should have been.
There is a chapter of the favorable response from the news media as if they were not doing their job of assessing him critically enough. He mentions that they did not photograph him as the cripple he was nor did they expose his love affair. FDR believed he needed to be seen as a strong leader not one crippled from polio. My reaction to this is that there were unwritten rules of conduct in those days and respect. I find that far more preferable than today when every aspect of a leader’s life is exposed causing concern to citizens when they should only be concerned with leadership or lack thereof. I did not like reading that the Administration used licensing of air ways to reward or punish radio stations depending on their support or lack thereof. I was also disturbed that the various agencies such as WPA determined the disbursement of funds for political advantage. I know he wasn’t the first or the last to use his position to garner political support. The author admits this but justifies his criticism that FDR had more options than previous administrations. Politics is not pretty. All thru our history parties and politicians have taken every advantage to improve their chances. Gerrymandering voting districts is one example. To this day it is par for the course. It is the voter’s responsibility to understand and sort thru the rhetoric as they make their decisions.
Farm subsidies are listed as misguided. He does admit that support for agriculture started with Hoover. I think he should write a book about this subject alone and how it has continued for 70 years since FDR increasing year by year. What FDR was trying to do was spare the family farmer from the vagaries of adverse weather and market deviations. By setting support levels he hoped to aid them. My own grandfather was a successful dairy farmer who lost his farm when the banks collapsed and lived the rest of his days in poverty in a tarpaper shack. Today’s subsidies go mainly to the super rich like Ted Turner who owns hundreds of thousands of acres in New Mexico. Farm families can no longer compete with the mega farms. I have written many times that aid should be restricted to the family farm but the beat goes on regardless of which party is in control. One of FDR’s real successes was bringing electricity to the farms. It was not economically possible without government assistance.
I was particularly upset with his attack on Social Security. He points out that early on people who had only paid a short while received multiple windfalls. Ida Fuller paid in $24.75 and received over her lifetime $22,888.92. He is outraged. I say wonderful. This woman was given the opportunity to live out her years in dignity. When my father died he took his pension with him. My mothers’ only source of income was $350/month from Social Security. My sister and I aided as best we could but both of us had three children to raise making it difficult. Before Social Security old people had nothing of their own. Could it have been better designed, probably, but regardless it fills a need even today. The fact that it is in trouble is not FDR’s fault, it is every Administration and Congress since his time to make necessary corrections to keep it solvent. FDR also wanted health care for all. He didn’t accomplish it. The Obama solution is an abomination in my humble opinion.
I agree with the general proposition that lower tax rates are good for the economy. It leaves funds available for individuals to spend on other than basic needs and it provides funds for industry to purchase equipment to improve their profitability. Lowering business taxes also improves the situation in regard to foreign competition. During the war FDR tried to get Congress to tax all personal income over $25,000 at 100%. The Congress balked but did set it at 90%. $25,000 was a lot of money back then. FDR did not believe it was right to profit extravagantly while 12 million men were in uniform putting their lives on the line. Contrast that with today when CEO’s and other top officers of companies rake in millions every year while our boys are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is what I call outrageous.
To prove his case that the New Deal was a failure he compares published unemployment statistics. The US was still at 19.8% in 1938. Guess what, Germany was at 2.1%. Looks like we would have been better off if we had started re-arming as Germany did.
FDR did not believe in relief without work except where absolutely necessary. That is why he promoted the WPA, CCC and other programs with the idea of providing useful work for those unemployed. I have hiked on trails and slept in shelters built at that time. Contrast that to today where millions have been receiving unemployment benefits of $300 or more per week to stay home. This is a continues program that is extended over and over to keep the funds flowing to people in their prime working years who could be contributing to our nation’s well-being.
He didn’t mention it but one of the greatest programs FDR got approved was the GI Bill of Rights. It enabled millions of veterans including myself to receive education to expand our opportunities. Together we transformed America.
In summation it comes down to this, within the framework of our Constitution, is it the responsibility of the Federal Government to take steps to correct problems or should it just sit by and let the markets run their course without stepping in to protect citizens? Just wait for the next war opportunity to do their thing. I say no. I also say that the government since Roosevelt has gone far overboard in asserting their authority such as Obama using the Commerce Clause to force citizens to purchase health insurance. It is now heading to the Supreme Court. Should they not find it un-constitutional then our great experiment in government will be over. The Dept of Energy was created in 1977 by President Carter to assure our independence in the field of energy. I understand it costs billions each year. You must know how successful that has been.
As I stated at the outset I knew I would be unhappy reading these books. It took awhile to accomplish as it was demoralizing to me. Roosevelt was my boyhood hero and even after reading these books I still feel the same. His philosophy was the same as mine during my leadership years. If there is a problem, gather together the best minds you can and brainstorm. When the best thought of solution is agreed to, assign it to staff with the knowledge and skill to enact. Should it not be the solution, then try again.
Did he make mistakes, certainly, as did I, but he kept searching for solutions? That is why the American people embraced him. He did his best. He was frustrated with the Supreme Court which kept him from enacting some of his programs which is why he foolishly tried to pack the Court. He lost a lot of support at that time. I will not condemn him for trying. Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt were our greatest presidents. John Fitzgerald Kennedy could have been the third but he was cut down before he could reach that level. All of them had personal problems but putting that aside they all strove for a better America and that is how I rate our leaders.
Jack B. Walters
The occasion was a visit to Tucson by Mrs. Ellen Donovan, the Executive Director of the Founders Campaign. I have been receiving the monthly copies of Hillsdale’s publication Imprimus since the mid 70’s. I was recovering from pneumonia at the time and a friend gave me a copy to read and enrolled my name on the mailing list. I enjoyed reading it and the hundreds of copies since. I was also invited to attend a two day seminar last year in Tucson. I admire the college’s commitment to excellence and in particular adhering to the principles as outlined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. All students are required to take a course with this as the subject. To maintain integrity the college refuses all funds from the Federal Government. It is able to do so thru the contributions of like minded supporters. During our breakfast session I enjoyed our conversation. It was a good give and take. I was able to present my ideas and in fact gave Mrs. Donovan a copy of my latest book “Still Angry”. She later wrote that she enjoyed reading. Feeling full of myself I later mailed her copies of my first two books. I also took the occasion to continue contributing financially.
Realizing that Mr. Folsom’s book would be negative, I expressed that I would read them, but knew I would not enjoy it as FDR was my boyhood hero. I was 13 when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. He was our trusted leader. We had full confidence that under his leadership that we as a nation would prevail over our enemies. The record shows that this was true. I was too young to have knowledge of the “New Deal”, but remember chills would run up and down my spine as I listened to his “Fireside Chats”. His charisma and enthusiasm calmed the nation and galvanized all of us to work together in our common cause. Except for the too few years of John F. Kennedy’s presidency no other President has been able to create solidarity as did FDR. I even exclude President Reagan. He was a good leader but he did not create the same unity of purpose of Americans.
This book only briefly covered WWII. It was mostly about the 30’s starting with President Hoover and then FDR. It chronicles many programs which were not as effective as they should have been. I will not argue with the facts as presented. The conversations reported undoubtedly took place and the failure of some of his programs did occur.
In stating my comments I want to start by suggesting that Professor Folsom is younger than I and therefore whatever information he possessed to publish this book was garnered from other sources. It is immediately evident that for whatever reason he started this project with an intense dislike of FDR. He starts by pointing out that he came from a wealthy family, was an average student or athlete. FDR’s passion it seems was politics which started at an early age. The author makes the point that FDR was a liar and had a mistress and therefore unworthy of the office of President. My response is that FDR liked to use stories of made up people to drive home a point similar, if I may be so bold, as Jesus Christ did with his parables. Those were not true stories, they were meant to drive home a message. As to the mistress, I will not fill up these pages by listing the many other Presidents who transgressed in a similar vain. My position on this subject is that we are all earthly creatures with needs and wants that need to be fulfilled one way or another. In FDR’s situation his marriage was for convenience, not love, at least not of a physical kind. I judge a person, not by indiscretions, but by deeds. The ultimate answer rests on whether the world was a better place because of that person’s effort. In my opinion FDR certainly qualifies.
When he took office America was in a deep depression partly as a result of the extravagant policies of president Hoover. Of particular concern were the extremely high tariffs enacted the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. The direct result was retaliation from the other major countries. FDR campaigned against it. The author’s dissatisfaction with FDR was the length of time he took to lower tariffs. He tried a country by country approach which while effective was not done as quickly as it perhaps should have been.
There is a chapter of the favorable response from the news media as if they were not doing their job of assessing him critically enough. He mentions that they did not photograph him as the cripple he was nor did they expose his love affair. FDR believed he needed to be seen as a strong leader not one crippled from polio. My reaction to this is that there were unwritten rules of conduct in those days and respect. I find that far more preferable than today when every aspect of a leader’s life is exposed causing concern to citizens when they should only be concerned with leadership or lack thereof. I did not like reading that the Administration used licensing of air ways to reward or punish radio stations depending on their support or lack thereof. I was also disturbed that the various agencies such as WPA determined the disbursement of funds for political advantage. I know he wasn’t the first or the last to use his position to garner political support. The author admits this but justifies his criticism that FDR had more options than previous administrations. Politics is not pretty. All thru our history parties and politicians have taken every advantage to improve their chances. Gerrymandering voting districts is one example. To this day it is par for the course. It is the voter’s responsibility to understand and sort thru the rhetoric as they make their decisions.
Farm subsidies are listed as misguided. He does admit that support for agriculture started with Hoover. I think he should write a book about this subject alone and how it has continued for 70 years since FDR increasing year by year. What FDR was trying to do was spare the family farmer from the vagaries of adverse weather and market deviations. By setting support levels he hoped to aid them. My own grandfather was a successful dairy farmer who lost his farm when the banks collapsed and lived the rest of his days in poverty in a tarpaper shack. Today’s subsidies go mainly to the super rich like Ted Turner who owns hundreds of thousands of acres in New Mexico. Farm families can no longer compete with the mega farms. I have written many times that aid should be restricted to the family farm but the beat goes on regardless of which party is in control. One of FDR’s real successes was bringing electricity to the farms. It was not economically possible without government assistance.
I was particularly upset with his attack on Social Security. He points out that early on people who had only paid a short while received multiple windfalls. Ida Fuller paid in $24.75 and received over her lifetime $22,888.92. He is outraged. I say wonderful. This woman was given the opportunity to live out her years in dignity. When my father died he took his pension with him. My mothers’ only source of income was $350/month from Social Security. My sister and I aided as best we could but both of us had three children to raise making it difficult. Before Social Security old people had nothing of their own. Could it have been better designed, probably, but regardless it fills a need even today. The fact that it is in trouble is not FDR’s fault, it is every Administration and Congress since his time to make necessary corrections to keep it solvent. FDR also wanted health care for all. He didn’t accomplish it. The Obama solution is an abomination in my humble opinion.
I agree with the general proposition that lower tax rates are good for the economy. It leaves funds available for individuals to spend on other than basic needs and it provides funds for industry to purchase equipment to improve their profitability. Lowering business taxes also improves the situation in regard to foreign competition. During the war FDR tried to get Congress to tax all personal income over $25,000 at 100%. The Congress balked but did set it at 90%. $25,000 was a lot of money back then. FDR did not believe it was right to profit extravagantly while 12 million men were in uniform putting their lives on the line. Contrast that with today when CEO’s and other top officers of companies rake in millions every year while our boys are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is what I call outrageous.
To prove his case that the New Deal was a failure he compares published unemployment statistics. The US was still at 19.8% in 1938. Guess what, Germany was at 2.1%. Looks like we would have been better off if we had started re-arming as Germany did.
FDR did not believe in relief without work except where absolutely necessary. That is why he promoted the WPA, CCC and other programs with the idea of providing useful work for those unemployed. I have hiked on trails and slept in shelters built at that time. Contrast that to today where millions have been receiving unemployment benefits of $300 or more per week to stay home. This is a continues program that is extended over and over to keep the funds flowing to people in their prime working years who could be contributing to our nation’s well-being.
He didn’t mention it but one of the greatest programs FDR got approved was the GI Bill of Rights. It enabled millions of veterans including myself to receive education to expand our opportunities. Together we transformed America.
In summation it comes down to this, within the framework of our Constitution, is it the responsibility of the Federal Government to take steps to correct problems or should it just sit by and let the markets run their course without stepping in to protect citizens? Just wait for the next war opportunity to do their thing. I say no. I also say that the government since Roosevelt has gone far overboard in asserting their authority such as Obama using the Commerce Clause to force citizens to purchase health insurance. It is now heading to the Supreme Court. Should they not find it un-constitutional then our great experiment in government will be over. The Dept of Energy was created in 1977 by President Carter to assure our independence in the field of energy. I understand it costs billions each year. You must know how successful that has been.
As I stated at the outset I knew I would be unhappy reading these books. It took awhile to accomplish as it was demoralizing to me. Roosevelt was my boyhood hero and even after reading these books I still feel the same. His philosophy was the same as mine during my leadership years. If there is a problem, gather together the best minds you can and brainstorm. When the best thought of solution is agreed to, assign it to staff with the knowledge and skill to enact. Should it not be the solution, then try again.
Did he make mistakes, certainly, as did I, but he kept searching for solutions? That is why the American people embraced him. He did his best. He was frustrated with the Supreme Court which kept him from enacting some of his programs which is why he foolishly tried to pack the Court. He lost a lot of support at that time. I will not condemn him for trying. Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt were our greatest presidents. John Fitzgerald Kennedy could have been the third but he was cut down before he could reach that level. All of them had personal problems but putting that aside they all strove for a better America and that is how I rate our leaders.
Jack B. Walters
Thursday, March 24, 2011
NATO attack on Libya
I wrote a letter the day the action started. You did not see fit to publish so I am trying again.
Letter to the Editor- Arizona Daily Star
The ultimate reason stated over and over is to prevent an imminent humanitarian crisis. I have a question what is the difference between Libya and Darfur? In Darfur millions were displaced from their homes by raiding bands of Muslim Arabs who wiped out Christian black villages killing and enslaving. The United Nations and NATO were reluctant to intervene when in my opinion a few drone aircraft blowing away a few of these groups might have stopped the massacre. There is only one answer I can think of, and that is “OIL”. Interfering in Yemen might have disrupted the flow of oil to China and the disruption of oil to Europe from Libya is causing problems there plus raising the cost worldwide. So there you have it, oil is the answer not humanitarianism.
Also noted is that the majority of Americans support bombing Libya, how sad.
Jack B. Walters
Letter to the Editor- Arizona Daily Star
The ultimate reason stated over and over is to prevent an imminent humanitarian crisis. I have a question what is the difference between Libya and Darfur? In Darfur millions were displaced from their homes by raiding bands of Muslim Arabs who wiped out Christian black villages killing and enslaving. The United Nations and NATO were reluctant to intervene when in my opinion a few drone aircraft blowing away a few of these groups might have stopped the massacre. There is only one answer I can think of, and that is “OIL”. Interfering in Yemen might have disrupted the flow of oil to China and the disruption of oil to Europe from Libya is causing problems there plus raising the cost worldwide. So there you have it, oil is the answer not humanitarianism.
Also noted is that the majority of Americans support bombing Libya, how sad.
Jack B. Walters
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
