Author Topic: His final column  (Read 1169 times)

Offline Griswold Contessa

  • Mayor
  • *******
  • Posts: 516
His final column
« on: August 02, 2011, 10:09:24 AM »
A friend of mine shared this with me and I think it is worth passing it on as well....

Charley Reese's final column

           
A very interesting column.  COMPLETELY NEUTRAL
Be sure to Read the Poem at the end.

Charley Reese's final column for the  Orlando Sentinel.

He has been a journalist for 49 years.

He is retiring and this is HIS LAST COLUMN.

Be sure to read the Tax List at the end.

This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be. The article below is completely neutral, neither anti-republican or democrat. Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel, has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day.  It's a short but good read.  Worth the time. Worth remembering!

      545 vs. 300,000,000 People

                     -  By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations.  The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall.  No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating  deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want.  If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in  Iraq and Afghanistan.

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy","inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they  alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of  them out of office and clean up their mess.


Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando  Sentinel  Newspaper.

What you do with this article now that you have read it is up to you. This might be funny if it weren't so  true.  Be sure to read all the way to the end:

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table,
At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.

Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for
peanuts anyway!

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
Taxes to pass

Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid...

Put these words
Upon his tomb,
'Taxes drove me
to my doom...'

When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax


STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What in the heck happened?  Can you spell 'politicians?'
One day your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure its worth watching.

Offline StevenGrey

  • Activist
  • *****
  • Posts: 233
Re: His final column
« Reply #1 on: August 02, 2011, 12:00:49 PM »
I had to stop after reading the third line: DO we have high taxes? -- I don't think so. Not compared to most other industrialized nations. Go on the internet and look it up. Americans are not overtaxed. And if you are wealthy, you are grossly undertaxed.

It's more a question of what are we getting in return from our tax dollars? Are they being wasted on unnecessary wars and new military "toys" instead of education, universal healthcare, or improvements to infrastructure? Unlike the ignorant members of the Tea Party, I'm not in favor of abolishing taxes and "big" government altogether... I just want both to work in the best interests of all its citizens. That's the debate that we're NOT having after all this debt ceiling and balanced budget amendment nonsense. What IS the role of the federal government? And what are the services our government can BEST provide that the private sector CANNOT?

The list of taxes Mr. Reese provided was long, but 100 years ago life was much simpler. We didn't need the FAA because the airplane hadn't been invented. Gasoline and telephone taxes weren't a consideration because both the car and phone were relatively new inventions that nobody owned. Utility or sewer taxes? You were wealthy back then if you had either indoor plumbing or electricity! Would you trade in the life you have today to go back to the way things were 100 years ago?

Sounds to me like Charley waited too long for retirement.


Offline Ed

  • Activist
  • *****
  • Posts: 228
Re: His final column
« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2011, 04:06:30 PM »
I liked this one:
http://www.dailyyonder.com/letter-langdon-much-our-dis-credit/2011/07/25/3445

As noble a sentiment as "I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes." is, the practical application is that votes go to where the money is. And not just money, just look at the revolving door between government position and corporate board; it's back and forth, back and forth.

As satisfying as it might be, on its face, to "vote the bastards out", just look at how quickly the most recent set of freshman Congresspersons fell into corporate lockstep.

Offline dssjh

  • Mayor
  • *******
  • Posts: 1376
Re: His final column
« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2011, 07:10:47 PM »
mr. grey,

we've disagreed from time to time on this forum, but you put that perfectly. we are wildly undertaxed as a country, and as far as the wealthy -- yes, people making 250K a year are ridiculously wealthy, regardless of what the right-wing-dominated media want you to believe -- well, they are simply raping america.

it's a shame, since no one will ever question this reality, until the whole thing collapses in....say.....10 years or so.

Offline toddg

  • Calendar Editor
  • Mayor
  • *******
  • Posts: 2799
Re: His final column
« Reply #4 on: August 02, 2011, 10:04:15 PM »
I think this column is quite good, and an important civics lesson regardless of one's political persuasion.

I agree with this in particular:

Quote
There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy","inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they  alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

The only change I'd make is that I'd expand the 545 people to include elected officials at all levels of government.  There's a lot of evasion of responsibility happening at all levels of government right now.

Offline willsweeney

  • Activist
  • *****
  • Posts: 183
  • WILL SWEENEY
Re: His final column
« Reply #5 on: August 03, 2011, 11:37:13 AM »
I disagree. I think the column is a complete distortion of reality. It contains several inaccuracies and is not helpful in its tone or its content.

There are two troubling elements of this column.

First, that the writer details many taxes that Americans pay but he fails to connect those taxes to services that benefit the common good. That is what taxes pay for. That is the price of civilization. To disconnect taxes (revenues) from spending (services) is to distort the picture. Social security, Medicare, universal education, the Military, Space exploration, World War 1, World War 2, Marshall plan, Environmental protections like Clean Air & Water, and (many, many more wonderful things) were all services paid for by taxes.

Second, the writer ends the column with this statement: "Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids."

There are several false statements here.

1- Many of the taxes listed DID exist 100 years including property taxes, sales taxes, corporate tax, state tax, local taxes, and many more. http://www.buzzle.com/articles/history-of-taxes.html

2- Many historians would argue that the United States was not yet the most prosperous nation in 1911. At that point in history, Great Britain and several other countries could challenge a claim to 'most prosperous nation'. However, most historians would make a direct casual connection between the investment in social spending that the USA did over the past 100 years, did in fact, raise the standard of living for Americans. That would go against the skewed logic of this column. Government spending has a direct impact on prosperity. http://www.jamesgoulding.com/Data%20(Historical)/Economic/Standard%20of%20Living%20(World).pdf

3- There absolutely was national debt 100 years ago. And 200 years go. There has always been a national debt. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

4- "Mom stayed home to raise the kids" seems like a paternalistic nod toward faux nostalgia. In 1911, many kids and moms worked in sweat shops or on the farm. Life was incredibly difficult and ended for most people before their 45th birthday.

BONUS --

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/reese.asp

This column was originally written in 1985 as a rant against President Reagan and the Democratic majority in the Congress. It seems like someone has taken parts of his original column and re-purposed it with an ideological agenda. 

Offline toddg

  • Calendar Editor
  • Mayor
  • *******
  • Posts: 2799
Re: His final column
« Reply #6 on: August 03, 2011, 05:07:40 PM »
Will,

I completely agree with you about the tax commentary. 

I guess I read the "column" as ending with "Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando  Sentinel  Newspaper."  I figured what came afterwards was somebody else's opinion.  Now, thanks to your Snopes discovery, it appears that "Charlie Reese" didn't write the first part either.  Regardless, I still agree with its sentiment that citizens should hold government accountable.

Offline eddiestjohns

  • Council Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 443
Re: His final column
« Reply #7 on: August 03, 2011, 09:14:23 PM »
people making 250K a year are ridiculously wealthy, regardless of what the right-wing-dominated media want you to believe -- well, they are simply raping america.


What amount of income makes people wealthy is an interesting.  Certainly in upstate NY 250K a year would make you very well to do and maybe even wealthy although I measure wealth by what you have saved not by what you make.  In NYC or Long Island if a couple is making 250K a year combined I would say they are very comfortable but not wealthy.  I have a couple who I am friends with and the husband works in construction and his wife teaches in the NYC schools.  They are both about 50 so they are making near the top of their pay ranges and their combined income is about 250K. They bought a house in Bayside several years ago and have two kids in college and they don't receive any financial aid because of their income and they certainly don't feel wealthy. What income for a single person or a couple do you find makes them wealthy?

I'm an independent and would never register to be a democrat or republican but I never thought of the media as right-wing dominated.  I would think ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN all lean left.  MSNBC leans far left and Fox leans very far right.  Although I don't read the NY newspapers much anymore since the NY Times went downhill the Times, Newsday and Daily News were always left leaning and the NY Post right leaning. I realize that some AM radio lean far right but to be honest I don't know the stations and find them unlistenable.  Why do you think the media is right-wing dominated?


Offline dssjh

  • Mayor
  • *******
  • Posts: 1376
Re: His final column
« Reply #8 on: August 03, 2011, 09:33:56 PM »
eddie:

perhaps in new york city (and san francisco and boston), 250K income does not make one wealthy. but for 99 percent of america, it does. one can buy a very very nice home in a 'secondary' market (cleveland, indianapolis, tulsa) for under 100K,  and get a job for 50. which is about what i make here. cost of living overall is much lower as well.

as far as the right wing domination? it's like that supreme court justice said when asked to define pornography: i know it when i see it. every mainstream outlet treats michelle bachmann like she has an IQ worthy of working the fryer at a mcdonald's, when she couldn't successfully debate a fourth grader in amerfican  history. the media also allows sarah palin to advocate assassinations, allows multiple tea party kommisars to suggest that we should eliminate martin luther king jr. from history books, force girls raped by their dads to birth deformed babies and deprive homosexuals of their constitutional rights. all without question. would they do the same for allowing us to torch fundamentalist churches? doubtful.

Offline StevenGrey

  • Activist
  • *****
  • Posts: 233
Re: His final column
« Reply #9 on: August 04, 2011, 02:34:46 PM »
Quote
I would think ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN all lean left.

eddie:

I respectfully disagree with you and fundamentally disagree with the myth that the "mainstream (news) media" leans to the left. All the companies you listed above are presently owned by huge media conglomerates that use their tremendous wealth to lobby members of Congress to enact legislation, or remove regulations, that will allow them to swallow up even more media outlets and become more powerful and profitable. Does that make them "liberal"? It sounds more like the Republican "ideal" of capitalism: buy off the politicians so you can become rich and powerful enough to squash the competition, regardless of whether or not that's in the public's best interest.

Full disclosure: I can't watch the FOX propaganda channel for more than 2 minutes without wanting to throw a brick through the TV screen. I regularly read The New York Times (still the best newspaper in this country), The Economist, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, and BBC World News (for an international perspective).

Offline eddiestjohns

  • Council Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 443
Re: His final column
« Reply #10 on: August 04, 2011, 03:01:54 PM »
eddie:

I respectfully disagree with you and fundamentally disagree with the myth that the "mainstream (news) media" leans to the left. All the companies you listed above are presently owned by huge media conglomerates that use their tremendous wealth to lobby members of Congress to enact legislation, or remove regulations, that will allow them to swallow up even more media outlets and become more powerful and profitable. Does that make them "liberal"? It sounds more like the Republican "ideal" of capitalism: buy off the politicians so you can become rich and powerful enough to squash the competition, regardless of whether or not that's in the public's best interest.

Full disclosure: I can't watch the FOX propaganda channel for more than 2 minutes without wanting to throw a brick through the TV screen. I regularly read The New York Times (still the best newspaper in this country), The Economist, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, and BBC World News (for an international perspective).

Steven,

Respectful disagreement is healthy.  You may be right about the large networks and maybe my personal sampling of these networks is limited to some of their on air personalities.  I was recalling the 2088 presidential election coverage  which I was watching with a very politically diverse group and Wolf Blitzer at CNN kept saying "we" won another state whenever Kerry was projected as a winner.  Later that night Tom Brokaw seemed devastated (many people were) when Bush won Ohio from Kerry.  But as I said my sample size is small and certainly not scientific.

I fully agree with you about watching Fox - it's horrible.  I do like BBC and I am not familiar enough with the Economist to comment on it.  I used to read the NY Times regularly but I feel they have lost some of their credibility.   I actually strongly dislike Olbermann and consider him in the same grouping as O'Reilly but from the other side of the aisle.  Since I am an independent and straddle the middle on many topics (I lean left on some topics and right on others) I just want some unbiased reporting and I'm not sure I am getting it anywhere

Offline Ed

  • Activist
  • *****
  • Posts: 228
Re: His final column
« Reply #11 on: August 04, 2011, 08:09:54 PM »
I was recalling the 2088 presidential election coverage  ...

You're from the FUTURE!?! :2funny:

Offline Ed

  • Activist
  • *****
  • Posts: 228
Re: His final column
« Reply #12 on: August 12, 2011, 11:59:45 AM »
A few more thoughts on the subject, the first is a pretty thoughtful response on another board:

With all due respect, xxxxxxx, comparisons to household debt are misplaced.

The government uses debt in much the same way that businesses do, as an investment. Most businesses operate with debt in order to grow their business and invest in new opportunities. That is why foreigners buy our bonds, etc.: they are investing in the United States. The real issue with mismanagement of the government/economy etc. is that those investors will start to see the US as a bad investment.

Any analogy to household spending would be more akin to a home mortgage; most 'homeowners' actually own debt, not a home, but they consider that to be a worthwhile way of structuring their finances.

The deficit is more related, in that it is the problem of spending more than you take in. The deficit and the debt are somewhat related (e.g., prolonged deficits tend to increase debt, prolonged surpluses decrease it), but not at all the same thing.
We raise the debt ceiling all the time, it is generally not considered a big issue. It's been raised about 30 times since 1980. Five of those were during GWB's administration. It's significant, sure, but the recent crisis was manufactured to some extent.
A big part of the issue is the enormous expense of fighting two wars while simultaneously cutting taxes and weathering an economic recession and huge financial crisis. These are important in themselves, but do not describe general government dysfunction in the sense promoted by the right.

I'm not arguing that we don't have a problem. There are obviously a lot of pressing and vital issues related to our debt and deficit problems. But the debt problem is not better illuminated by comparisons to household spending, which is a poor metaphor.


And also this.

Offline username

  • Resident
  • ***
  • Posts: 26
Re: His final column
« Reply #13 on: September 12, 2011, 10:09:30 PM »
One of the problems I have with this article is how the writer fails to recognize that WE -the voters- are the government and that the politicians are merely doing what we elected them to do. Well, actually, turn out at non-presidential elections is so low that we actually don't really elect anyone. We actually deserve everything that is happening to us because very few of us volunteer to become members of our party at the grassroots level. WE could actually have a direct impact at choosing real progressives -regardless of party affiliation- who can represent the majority: the working class.

You want real change? GET INVOLVED in your local political party. Then nominate real progressives who don't follow the status quo. Support candidates who know why election reform is needed (hint: getting money out of elections). Support candidates who understand why media reform is needed (it's not healthy having a handful of corporations control what you read, listen to and watch on the tubes.)

btw, whenever you hear a "reporter" start an argument or question directed at a politician with "some say that you..." CHANGE the channel. A real journalist would be able to mention WHO said what. Otherwise, what they are really doing is giving you their opinion. And you know opinions are just like...