Dear Senator Harry Reid,
I am sending you this correspondence because of the solicitude I have over you and your political party's incessant need to dissolve the economic and political freedoms of your constituency. I am cognizant of you and your supporters unremitting need to vociferate to any and all who dissent that the Democratic party won the election, “so get used to it.” As the two major political machines continue to strive vigorously and resolutely to abrogate individual sovereignty, disregard constitutional law, and pretermit the principles of free market economics, I cannot help but wonder, how far do you intend to go? Please do not retort with regurgitative rhetoric that insists you acquired a decaying economy from the previous administration, for we the people are fully aware of the causal agent. This answer has become tedious and mechanical, and given the surfeited features of your party's economic policies this excuse is no longer valid.
Might I impose upon you to acquiesce and address the following questions? I, in turn, promise not to be too interrogative.
At what point in your political career did you conclude that the citizenry of this country was mentally infirm and incapable of governing itself?
This question, by its nature, implies that a conclusion has been reached based on evidence sufficient to warrant governmental intercedence. Legislation has been instituted to regulate the market system, the environment, abortion, drugs, religion, sex, child discipline, marriage, and free speech. I would be remiss if I did not mention your obstreperous efforts to enact restrictive measures on the second amendment, have you forgotten what type of people live in Nevada? Let us review a little bit of your voting record;
Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration (June 2006, and also in Dec 1995).
While I am not in favor of seeing the sacredness of our nation's enduring symbol violated, I am more concerning with the stifling of free expression. Do you, or have you ever, had problems with certain aspects of the First Amendment?
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping (Oct 2001).
How do you circumscribe the parameters of individual liberty? I am sure your response will be that the aforesaid action was instigated as a form of protectionism against a greater threat to our nation's security. But the dissolution of freedom always starts with a whimper, doesn't it? There are egregious sections (some argue it completely is) within the PATRIOT ACT, I hear no outrage from you with regard to the intrusion of individual liberty and the enforcement of a police state. Respectfully, when you do speak you almost appear anesthetized and apathetic. Why?
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage in September of 1996, but in June, 2006 you voted NO on a constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
As with most politicians, your social allegiance seems to vacillate as it interacts with the atmosphere of public opinion. So where do you stand, for or against gay marriage? Will you change your viewpoint in another 10 years?
How would you address the concerns that your party exhibits a negligent disposition towards fiscal responsibility? Since Obama became president the Democratic party has had a fixed mental attitude with predetermined interpretations and responses towards economic theory and free market capitalism. How can you justify the usage of stimulus monies on pork projects that do not provide immediate or long term benefit to stabilizing our national economy, much less our state economy? Is it your contention that the interstate rail system you fought for will become the financial antigen to our debilitative economy?
You voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security (May 2006)
You voted NO on limiting welfare for immigrants (June 1997).
Voted YES on continuing federal funds for declared “sanctuary cities” (March 2008).
Do you see anything wrong with this? How do you justify enforcing taxes (legalized theft) to pay for programs that will be allocated to people who have committed an illegal act? Let me be clear and state that I am not against “legal immigration,” but to capitulate under progressive ideology and forcibly control participation via the redistribution of taxes from the legitimate portion of society is beyond reasoning. I will not go into the failure of Social Security, both of us don't have the time.
What I have provided above could be argued that when viewed collectively it is rather superfluous when compared to the entirety of your term. But as you so aptly put, “your party,” is in charge. Therefore, by employing logic affiliation has an equivalence of meaning as one tries to demarcate your course of action relative to that of your party. Or in more unsophisticated terms, guilty by association. I have never understood the following; you were elected to represent the people of Nevada in the Senate, and thus your political authority is found in the derivation of the will of the people you represent. If we consider that to be the normative aspect of representation, why do you enact, or participate in enactments, that are based on party ideology and not the will of your constituents? The true measure of your significance in office will be laden with contradiction. Will that be your legacy? Your party is resembling the Tammany Society more and more.
You have compelled obedience to a stimulus bill that the majority of Nevadans did not want.
You have imposed upon us the responsibility of being part owners of a defunct car company, an obligation we did not want.
ACORN is under investigation in Nevada from the FBI and you continue to find it necessary that they receive stimulus money, which in itself is “taxpayer money.” Is it true to say that the procurement of votes for your party is more important than adhering to the law?
If ACORN is under investigation why will they still be involved with the census? Why are they even involved in the first place? A Representative in another state suggested that the Post Office should be used to carry out the census. A very good idea, would you agree or would you rather use supposed felons?
As of this writing the National Institutes of Health is spending over $423,000 dollars of taxpayer money to conduct a study as to why men do not like to wear condoms during sex. I guess I will have to concede that there are many definitions of stimulus. Is this fiscal responsibility?
As of this writing unemployment rates in eight states hit record highs last month: California, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Florida and Georgia. Of those cited the West reported the highest jobless rate at 10.1 percent. My questions to you on this matter are as follows;
- What are you doing to bring more jobs to Nevada?
- What are you doing to preclude future job losses?
By raising taxes on the upper income levels will that not stifle investment opportunities and detract their capital from reaching wage earnings and spending in the private sector?
As unemployment benefits run out and there is no more money to throw at the problem, what advice do you have for the people who are jobless and penniless? Are they supposed to wait for green jobs?
As you are well aware the President pledged that he will not raise taxes on the lower and middle income Americans, however, he signed into law a 62 cent-per-pack tax increase on cigarettes. Do you know that this tax will hit the poor harder because they smoke at twice the rate of middle and higher income Americans? Additionally, your party is considering (if not already implemented) large increases in “sin” taxes. They include, beer taxes, wine taxes, and taxes on spirits. Let us not forget that you are also considering new excise taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages, so when viewed collectively, what portion of society do you think it will hurt the most? I guess someone has to pay for your party's spending.
For your consideration please view the following paragraph taken from an article found at the Cato Institute;
“Higher Corporate Taxes
America has the second highest corporate income tax rate in the world and uncompetitive rules for taxing multinational companies. Yet the Obama administration plans to make matters worse by raising taxes on U.S. multinational corporations by $210 billion over 10 years to pay for health care. A corporate tax increase would damage average families because it would reduce capital investment and curb worker productivity, leading to lower wages and benefits over time. Obama’s plan would also mean fewer domestic jobs—Microsoft Corporation, for example, says that it will move U.S. jobs offshore if these tax hikes go through.”
Furthermore, your response is needed on another quote taken from the same article;
“Taxing Employer-Provided Health Insurance
Employer-provided health insurance is currently not taxed under the federal income or payroll taxes. But Democrats are considering proposals to limit or repeal this tax exclusion, which could affect the 163 million people who currently have employer-based coverage.
The current exclusion is a solidly middle-class tax benefit. More than 70 percent of middle income non elderly Americans have employer-based health coverage. And about half of people with employer-based coverage have family income of less than $75,000.
Limiting the tax exclusion for employer-based health care is a good idea if it is part of a plan to shift the overall system toward market-based individual coverage. Under such a plan, individuals would get a tax deduction or credit for purchasing health insurance on their own or through an employer. The result would be that most workers would pay about the same in taxes, but health markets would be more efficient and coverage would be expanded and made more portable. John McCain proposed such a reform in the 2008 election campaign. Obama criticized the idea at the time, but he should reconsider this approach if he wants to pursue true reform with bipartisan support.”
This leads me to the conclusion of this letter. While it may appear that there is a new attitude and appeal towards limited government, let me correct this proposition by asseverating that this is not a new phenomenon, but a resuscitation of a principle long forgotten as the foundation of our Republic. I have never heard in any of your press conferences you espouse the benefits of limited government in economics and individual rights. Why is that? Do you disagree with limited government? Is it your contention that larger government is the prerequisite necessary for economic, social, judicial, and political stability? The following is a quote from you;
“...government is the only body that has any money to spend to prop up the sagging economy.”
Where does the government get its money Senator? The following quote is taken form an article I wrote, “The Failure of Keynesianism,”
“To posit that a government, by infusing itself in the private sector, can act as a ballast and stabilize an infirm economy is nothing more than financial and economic illiteracy. You must understand that the government cannot generate income and purchasing power out of nothing, its true derivation is found in taxation or through the printing of money. Both forms are net negatives on the economy and true economic growth results from the production of goods and services, not from the redistribution of income. Bush's rebate checks did not effect a positive reaction nor did it increase economic output, why would Obama's plan be any different?”
May I respectfully ask for your response to this? If you do not agree, can you purvey a counter-point? Would you acknowledge the following; as the government increases the amount of tax money extracted from the populace, the less we have to spend on food, clothing, housing, transportation, and other general necessities? As the government increases the amount of tax money extracted from private businesses, the less they have to invest, expand with, develop with, as well as the accretion of wage earnings by employees (which have their own collateral effect)? Most of us know that there is a plethora of entitlement programs the government creates and sustains each year with taxpayer funds, but the people have no say with respect to their institution. One of the problems of entitlement programs is that they overlap in providing services, so taxpayers are essentially paying twice for multiple entities supplying similar services where only one is needed. Why is that Senator? Is it a response to requests from lobbyists and activist groups?
One last quote from the Cato Institute;
“Every added dollar of federal spending costs the private sector more than just a dollar. Taxes cause economic distortions by changing relative prices and diverting resources into less productive uses. The costs created by those distortions are called “deadweight losses.” Economic research indicates that deadweight losses cost the economy 25 cents or more of each added dollar of federal revenue. Thus, government programs that do not create benefits at least 25 percent greater than their tax costs make no economic sense. Many academic studies have found that deadweight losses of additional taxes are much larger than 25 percent. Harvard’s Martin Feldstein concluded that “the deadweight burden caused by incremental taxation . . . may exceed one dollar per dollar of revenue raised, making the cost of incremental governmental spending more than two dollars for each dollar of government spending.” Thus, a new $1 billion NASA spacecraft could cost the private sector more than $2 billion. As the government grows larger, higher taxes reduce the rewards to work, savings, entrepreneurial activity, and business investment. Consider a working person who is considering launching a side business to earn extra income. If the government raises tax rates and dissuades her from those plans, the nation loses the added production and the innovative ideas that she could bring to the economy. As federal spending rises, taxes are pressed upward, and many such private opportunities are suppressed. It is doubtful that most federal programs create benefits as large as those of the private sector activities they displace.”
This leads to me to the important issue of the Climate Change Bill that will be making its way to the Senate. Am I wasting my time by requesting that you do not vote for this bill? As of this writing I have read that you want to take up the legislation by fall, may I ask why? Here is a quote from you, Sir;
“The bill is not perfect, but it is a good product for the Senate. Working with the president and his team, I am hopeful that the Senate will be able to debate and pass bipartisan and comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation this fall.”
Members of the House willfully disregarded the need to read the bill prior to voting on it, will you even bother? Supporters of this bill agree that this will lead to higher energy costs, but cannot agree on the impact to consumers. Really? People will pay more in taxes in an economic atmosphere where most families are financially stretched thin, barely being able to keep their homes. Do you intend on breaking the backs of the American family? You state that it will create green jobs, so will the people who work in the coal, gas, and oil industries be able to switch jobs as their respective industries are decimated? Or will they have to fight for it like the millions of others out of work?
I agree Senator that the citizenry of this great country has become tractable and lethargic, but thanks to your party these do-nothingistic features are starting to dissipate. And just in time for the 2010 elections, wouldn't you say? At your earliest convenience I would like to request some incite from you regarding some, if not all, of the questions I have expressed above. I am under no illusion Sir. I understand that it is more likely that an assistant will read this letter, for I know you are busy spending taxpayer money. Nevertheless, whatever medium you choose I hope that person will cogitate and return some much needed understanding of your positions. I plan on circulating this letter in multiple avenues hoping to receive a response, as well as displaying it on my site, The Liberty Pen. Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.
In support of other bloggers to share their viewpoints, I would like to offer, The Conservative Hideout 2.0. Take some time and look at this blog, read some articles, and post some comments. Thank you.