If you vote for Scott Brown and – God forbid! - he wins, you will be responsible for:
- Increasing the national debt (mainly because he refuses to allow the top 1 percet to pay anything close to their fair share of taxes); and
- Increasing unemployment (because he consistently votes against funding job-creating bills).
The Republican party’s standard answer to these criticisms is that the wealthiest 1 percent are the job creators. With very few exceptions, this is absolute nonsense.
Private-sector jobs are created when the middle class has enough income to spend to buy goods and services. (How many businessmen do you know who will create more jobs to produce something that no-one will buy?) Public-sector jobs are created when governments allocate funds for them. (The unemployment rate would be about 7 percent - instead of 8+ percent - if nearly a half million jobs for teachers, police officers, and other government personnel had not been cut.)
Republicans like Brown oppose both approaches to creating jobs. He is irresponsible.
Don Chauls
92 Blueberry Hill Lane
siobhan hullinger
8:00 am on Friday, July 20, 2012
Why don't you push for a flat tax, Don? Seems everyone paying the same percentage might be fair to me. I pay far more than I think "fair" and I contribute quite a bit to charity - time and money. My husband's businesses were on the brink of failure when he risked our future to buy in and now they are thriving and employing hundreds - hundreds of families that earn a good wage, produce a product made in the USA, and have stability in their futures.
Yes, I think we pay too much when you consider the livelihoods we have preserved and grown.
Why don't you stop asking for more and focus on the incredible waste the public sector has created in governmental inefficiencies?
That might reap better return than throwing more dollars into a bloated sink hole of waste.
siobhan hullinger
8:13 am on Friday, July 20, 2012
Oh and just for the record - I will never vote for an academic who has scammed the system and taken the spot of a REAL minority to get ahead. Ms Warren should try and understand how the real world has to survive instead of postulating on the "theory".
Don Chauls
9:03 am on Friday, July 20, 2012
1. Rather than a flat tax, why not go back to the tax rates of the post-WWII era in which the economy grew the fastest - the 1950s, with Republican President Dwight Eisenhower? With very high personal income rates on the very wealthy, our economy did extremely well.
2. The Republican view that government is a "sink hole of waste" is a myth. Granted, as in any large institution (public or private), there are some bad apples - but they are the exception rather than the rule. Most government employees are as hard-working and honest as you and your husband. The extreme cuts in their numbers have made some government institutions, such as our schools, less effective than they ought to be. The solution is simple - increase the taxes on those who can afford it to raise the revenue needed to improve quality.
Don Chauls
9:13 am on Friday, July 20, 2012
Elizabeth Warren's parents were forced to elope because her father's family didn't want their son to marry a woman whose family was known to have Native American blood. Growing up, she knew that story and, therefore, assumed that it was true. Furthemore, her Native American roots were not known at Harvard until AFTER she was hired...This ridiculous claim is akin to the tea party nonsense that Obama was not born in America - an attempt to misdirect the public away from real issues by people who have no decent solutions to the real issues that face us.
A concerned Citizen
10:11 am on Friday, July 20, 2012
God Don you believe anything. I will be glad to sell you the bridge in Sudbury and you can put up a toll.
I'm sure you believe that she did not put down she was a minority when she applied to Harvard.
Only Liberals believe that crap.
A concerned Citizen
9:13 am on Friday, July 20, 2012
If you have paid attention for the last six years it is the democtats that have increased the national debt not the Republicans. Yet as a true Democrat, pay no attention to the facts. This trickle up theory has proven that if you give people money not to work, they will sit around and wait for more money.
Vote Scott Brown Pow Wow Warren will help bankrupt this country.
siobhan hullinger
9:24 am on Friday, July 20, 2012
Why are you opposed to a flat tax? The tax code is far too complex and has created a whole industry in evading tax. I don't dispute that there are many government employees that are hard worker, however, there is redundancy and waste - you cannot dispute that. Our own little patch of the world has waste and dollar manipulation.
As for the Eisenhower era? That time has past and our economic indicators, industries and infrastructure are simply not equal. It is unreasonable to think results would be the same or similar.Just for the record - the tax code was quite simple in the Eisenhower era. We also didn't have the Department of Education, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, the EPA, War on Drugs, No Civil Rights, no Patriot Act - I'm sure there are many more. My point is spending was much lower - Would you be willing to remove all of these things?
Apples to apples
It's also my understanding that we were headed towards recession at the end of the Eisenhower era so the policies didn't seem to have a lasting effect.
Don Chauls
9:48 am on Friday, July 20, 2012
A flat tax would simply exacerbate the income gap between rich and poor. Tax rates should be designed to encourage people to get rich, but discourage people from getting obscenely rich. The distinction is a important one - although the border between them is debatable. When people have billions to play around with, it is relatively easy for them to buy politicains.. Republicans and Democrats should agree to try to reduce the importance of money in politics. Allowing people to get obscenely rich by having low tax rates on extremely high incomes prevents this from happening.
A concerned Citizen
10:15 am on Friday, July 20, 2012
Last time I looked trying t get rich was a good thing. Oh that's right, unless your a republican.
Democrats are such idiots.
siobhan hullinger
9:51 am on Friday, July 20, 2012
Don - We agree on the Obama birthing movement - however, Hannibal invaded the village in Italy that my ancestors occupied so under your statement regarding Warren, I - and my children - would qualify for minority status. I have never thought that that is and would be a reasonable action to engage in. For me - following her statements and yours - it is a character issue to do that. It doesn't feel right to me given I could certainly claim minority status as she had.Trace amounts do not make it so. She took a spot from someone else - I don't care what her family story is - soemone who has far more minority status lost out. That is my issue - character.
siobhan hullinger
9:59 am on Friday, July 20, 2012
It's not the government's role to determine the cap on income or what is considered obscene or not. The billion dollar earners are not the top 1%. Some teachers, firefighters, police etc are in the top 1% - low end but if you are talking the billionaires - then what percent is that?
I also don't see how the flat tax makes the disparity greater. Flat tax - everyone - no deductions, no loopholes, no categories, income is all the same regardless.
We also agree on "buying politicians" - campaign reform is sorely needed for sure. The amount of money spent on campaigns and the conflicts that come from that are simply obscene. How about our elected have no benefits? No psecial health care, no travel payments, limit staff and on and on and on. They should be the same as their constiuents. The Founding Fathers would not appreciate that we have created a "government class"
Don Chauls
12:40 pm on Friday, July 20, 2012
Siobhan, please be reasonable: do you really believe that some "teachers, firefighters, police, etc." are in the top 1% of income earners?
Also, a flat tax means that an extremely wealthy person's maximum tax rate is the relatively low flat tax rate: he/she keeps 100% minus that rate. Under a graduated personal income tax system, the extremely wealthy person is supposed to pay at a much higher rate. (That is why the income disparity betwen rich and poor back in the Eisenhower days was much less than it is today.)
Since we agree on reducing the influence of money on politics, let's focus on a practical action: do yo agree to pushing for an amendment to the Constitution to overturn the Citizens United case?
siobhan hullinger
2:15 pm on Friday, July 20, 2012
Yes, if we are talking COMBINED incomes in a two person household, then yes, we have public servants in the 1% category ( total earnings 250 k and above ). I will say this just so we don't go down this road - I think they earn every bit of it. I don't think that administration, such as in our SPS system, should grow at the detriment of our teachers and classrooms. Our SPS teachers are sadly underpaid yet they over perform and yet Dr Wilson has grown administration not teachers.
I can't answer the issue of an amendment at this time - I don't think I have enough knowledge to engage meaningfully but I will say I was disgusted at the GM ad during the past Super Bowl that clearly was a political ad for Obama. The lines are too blurred. It made me extremely uncomfortable how it was disguised. I also don't like it when the unions come out and support a candidate. The media disgusts me when they endorse someone also. This is my country and my leaders, not a "union's or media's. We have an apathic voting population that would rather take the word of a movie star than become informed on their own. People today too often take direction from someone they like or admire. It's a lot of time to find find the balance between opposing points with all the distraction of " noise" and daily life. I think it's sad and part of the reason we are in the situation we are in.
siobhan hullinger
7:27 am on Friday, August 3, 2012
Don, I've done some preliminary research on the Citizens United decision and this is what I can say so far - not to say that it won't change when I look further: The film in question ( Hillary Clinton The Movie ) was a direct result of Michael Moore's film ( Farenheit 9/11 ). Moore's film, which clearly was an anti Bush campaign film released prior to an election and was allowed. Citizens United declared themselves a filmmaker and used "facts" as a basis for the film just as Moore did. However, the court ruled that the sole purpose of the film was to bash Clinton and ruled against Citizens United's release of the film. It then goes before the Supreme Court which then ruled in favor. My take - and preliminary at that - is we have to define "corporation". If you want to overturn Citizens, then by all means I would be in favor of that movement aas long as you are including ALL groupings - or "corporations". That - to me - would include union monies as well. Does that need to be through a Constitutional amendment? I'm not sure on that yet but I will look further into it. A good recent article on this was in the NY Times Magazine on 7/17/2012 by Matt Bai titled How Much Has Citizens United Changes the Political Game http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/magazine/how-much-has-citizens-united-changed-the-political-game.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Edward Stark
10:15 am on Friday, July 20, 2012
Larry O'Brien violates the very laws he has been elected to enforce but WE Sudbury are to blame. Elizabeth Warren blatantly lies about her background but Scott Brown is the bad guy.
When are we all going to realize that this is Don Chauls' world and we're all living in it. He is always right and WE are always wrong. I've accepted it and now I'm moving on to more important things like taking a nap.
pmotw
1:17 pm on Friday, July 20, 2012
Seems to me Mr. Chauls would be very happy living in a communist country.
SueChap
11:00 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
and he advocates for this in his far left proposals which Larry O'Brien and Maureen Valente have endorsed. Unfortunately, we live in a society where the government is more concerned about ensuring an environment which protects their job and pension and the label civil servant has been lost.
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III
7:24 pm on Friday, July 20, 2012
Don Chauls asked,
"How many businessmen do you know who will create more jobs to produce something that no-one will buy?"
Don, businessmen don't do that... at least not for very long. Their companies would go out of business; and many have. The U.S. Government does this all the time. The list could start with the Volt automobile and would be very, very long. A vote for Granny Warren only perpetuates this mentality.
Your spiritual advisor,
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III
arbly
9:44 pm on Friday, July 20, 2012
Mr. Chauls and his friends are the reason for 20k$ hammers, 10$ rolls of toilet paper and ebt cards being used for booze. Just another Warrens little helper
Erich Waible
1:46 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Mr Chauls. Warren is about as Native American as I am from Concord. Bottled water anyone?
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III
8:00 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
We should give Chauls time to adjust his medication levels and then reconsider his choice for U.S. Senate.
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III
Sid Bourne
9:05 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
I am amazed at the vitriol and sarcasm in the replies to this article. Don's thoughts are well reasoned, and he supports his points with clear, logical arguments. Siobhan also tries to keep her arguments logical, although she allows some of the absurd false talking points of the current national and state campaigns to creep into her statements. Others (pmotw, Ed, Pimperton, etc) go on diatribes which just raise the tension, and are intended to intimidate / shame / shut down opposing views. Don, well done. The others, as Dan says, Sudbury we can do better.
A concerned Citizen
12:15 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Sounds like a democrat. When you can't win on the facts, claim you must be racist or hate speech. If you want to hear vitrol listen to our president
pmotw
7:47 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
When I see a duck I call it a duck. I can't be bothered to sugar coat my thoughts in fear I will offend someone. It's perfectly clear, based on his Mr. Chauls statements, he is in favor of sharing the wealth regardless of how ambitious, lazy, successful or unsuccessful individuals are. . To me that is socialism and to me socialism is communism. The United States of America was not born or designed around socialism. If you don't like it, find somewhere else to live.
SueChap
11:06 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Sid, while I normally agree with you, on this one I don't. You can't evalaute Don on his comments here alone. He is a well reasoned as our other Sudbury neighbor advocating for socialized healthcare.
If this is vitriol, then what do you call family discussions and debates over holiday dinners... while some comments are just comments, most are based on something that can be validated or otherwise. As long as there are no name calling, or personal attacks, then so be it. If Don Chauls wants to demean tea party patriots as wack jobs then it is fair game to call him a left wing wack.
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III
9:28 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Chauls writing is better understood if you read more of it online and see that he has participated in the 'Occupy' movement. This is not to say his writing will appeal to those who believe in a republic based on capitalism.
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III
Sid Bourne
10:02 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Pimperton III: "Guilt by association" is a typical technique used to disparage opposition when you want to avoid the strength of their arguments. Whether he is a Boy Scout, a member of Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Sudbury, a Mormon, a Muslim Brother, a Knight of Columbus makes no difference. His arguments need be reckoned with, and you seem to feel the need to weaken them with extraneous diversions. Shows you are uncomfortable with his arguments at their face value
Don Chauls
2:52 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Thank you, Sid.
Granted, I am a Democrat. To me, that means that I THINK about issues, and try to conclude whatever I believe to be best for our town, state, country, and world. I do like to have an intelligent conversation with people who draw diferent conclusions. But some of the name-calling and irrelevant comments by some of the individuals on this thread do make it difficult.
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III
3:01 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Don,
Too bad many of your fellow Democrats do not act in the best interest of the town, state, country and world. Note that numerous Democrat leaders are passing on the national convention, for fear of being associated with an increasingly unpopular President...formerly known as The Chosen One, The One We Have Been Waiting For.
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III
Mike Hullinger
11:16 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Don,
1.Creating a public sector job comes from confiscating private sector earnings. Please comment on the opportunity cost that is incurred from this confiscation of private sector earnings.
2. The tax rates under Eisenhower were a continutation of the rates under Hoover, which in turn were a continutation of rates developed under FDR, when the Federal Government dramatically increased the scope and reach of its powers over the States and the Individual. Economic growth during the 1950's was not a consequence of the tax rates in effect during that time. Although the top mariginal rate was far higher than today, very, very, very few citizens actually paid that rate. By the end of the Truman administration there were far more tax brackets than today, hence a top bracket with a insanely high marinal rate. In reality, the top quintile was paying at a rate of around 20%.
3. Income disparity is a symptom of a Free Society. Wealth redistribution is a sympton of a centrally planned and controlled society.
4. I highly recommend 3 books for this summer's reading. The Forgotten Man, Freedoms Forge, and New Deal or Raw Deal for a perspective on the years when Federal Power increased dramatically, and the end result on the Rights of the States and the Individual.
5. Increases in the National Debt are not a function of Federal Revenue (taxation) but a function of the increaisng scope of the Federal Government and out of control and undisciplined Federal Spending.
Don Chauls
7:51 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
May I first suggest that you think more carefully about the terminology you use. If taxation is "confiscation of private sector earnings", the logical conclusion is that nothing should be confiscated and we should not have any government. If nearly all government expenditures are "out of control and undisciplined", then the logical conclusion again is to get rid of government. Reality is more complex. We DO need government and need to provide it with sufficient revenues to implement the things we want it to accomplish. We should neither over-fund it nor under-fund it.
Democrats and Republicans ought to be having a dalogue on the services we want government to perform, how much they cost, and what taxes to levy to obtain the revenues to pay for them. Democrats try to do that, but Republicans don't allow that dicussion to happen. All Republicans want to do is cut taxes (especially on the very wealthy).
It is extremely doubtful that President Herbert Hoover coninued the tax rates developed under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and that the top quintlle only paid around 20%. But your second point is essentially correct: there were a lot of loopholes that enabled the wealthy to avoid paying the 90+% personal income tax rate on the highest incomes. Nevertheless, higher income people were definitey paying at a higher rate than today, which resulted in a much smaller income gap between rich and poor.
Don Chauls
7:51 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Your third point is incorrect. In many unfree societies - monarchies of old, the USSR, many of today's dictatorships - the income disparity was/is substantial. In the US since the 1980s, we have redistributed wealth from the middle class to the very wealthy.
Mike Hullinger
8:32 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
I meant Truman not Hoover. It was late.
I am not suggesting no government at all. Our Decleration of Independence I think succintly states the purpose and role of Government. Taxation is a necessary requirement to fund the activities needed for Government to fullfill its role. Taxation of the individual for these purposes is still a confiscation of private sector earnings. This shifting of earnings comes with an opportunity cost. My concern over the expansion of the Federal Government has nothing to do with suggesting no Government, rather it is the concern that our Federal Government has evolved to a Government without limits or boundaries, growing far beyond the purpose of Government stated in our Founding Document and the limits placed upon it by our federal Constitution.
The reason so few people paid at the highest marginal rate in the 40's and 50's was that there were so many tax brackets, hardly anyone fell into the top tax bracket. The loopholes from poorly conceived tax legislation were taken advantage by people in all brackets, not just the top marginal rate bracket.
Mike Hullinger
8:35 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Do some research and you will see the effective tax rate paid by the top quintile of wage earners.
Mike Hullinger
9:10 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
While it is true that a lower percentage of households represent a larger percentage of total household net worth today than in 1980, it is also true that total household networth increased dramatically during the period since 1980. So you also need to look at household net worth in real terms across all segments. If, for example, the middle 20% of households measured by Net Worth represented 10% of the $10 trillion in household net worth in around 1980, do the middle 20% represent more or less than $2.7 trillion ($1 trillion in 1980 adjusted for inflation to 2012) out of a total household net worth that is now somewhere north of $50 trillion. In this example, if the middle 20% holds less than $2.7 trillion in net worth, then wealth of the middle 20% has been redistributed to somewhere else. If not, then the wealth of the middle 20% has increased since 1980. Other quintiles of our total households may have growth rates in net worth that are higher or lower than the middle 20% over this time period, however this is more a function of how they particpated in economic growth activities over the past 50 years, not whether or not the Federal Government was used to redistribute incomes earned over this period of time. Federal confiscation of "Wealth" rather than "Income" are the inheritence and gift taxes.
Jeanabella
10:25 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Brown voted against "equal pay" as well. Forbes called Brown "Wall St. Favorite Congressman". The "faux" controversy over Warren's heritage has been explained but the right wing want to take the focus off the facts that Warren will fight for the middle class but Brown has proven he won't! I'm hoping the thinking public will stand up for women & the middle class & vote!
Liz
9:49 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Well this woman owns her own business (and has created jobs) and she will be voting for Brown (again) to protect small business and jobs. And because Warren is the kind of politician who would only create more gridlock in DC because her political views are so extreme.
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III
11:02 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
"Equal Pay" is at the top of the Flawed Concept List. Let us try to guess who in the Politburo would decide what equal pay means. The market does an excellent job of this now.
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III
Liz
9:57 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
I was living in Ontario, Canada when they passed legislation calling for "equal pay for work of equal value". It was a nightmare because it's impossible for somebody to sit down and figure out what constitutes "equal value". But all the employers had to go through this exercise. Of course, we could elect Elizabeth Warren since she seems perfectly comfortable deciding for everyone what our salaries should be and what profits are "reasonable".
Jeanabella
11:40 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Sorry Rev. but your "communist" reference isn't appropriate for this subject! Unless you are calling the Executive branch of a Corp. similar to a Politburo!
Your Flawed Concept List could begin with belief that women ARE paid the same as men for the same work but the facts don't comply.
You're either for equal pay or you're not. You obviously are not!
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III
12:01 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
We should start with the assumption that if you are paid less, you are doing less work or the work is less difficult. Or would you rather start with some dark conspiracy theory on how the market does not function, Jeanabella?
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III
MrIndependent
7:01 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Jennabella,
From that same Forbes article you cite:
"Is Brown, then, beholden to Wall Street interests? Not necessarily. In May he sided with Democrats in voting for the Senate's financial regulatory overhaul bill, which President Barack Obama called "reform that will protect consumers, protect our economy, and hold Wall Street accountable.""
Don Chauls
7:49 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
If you look carefully at Scott Brown's votes, he is an 'independent' only when his vote doesn't really matter. On anything close, he'll vote the way the Republican leadership and Wall Street want him to vote.
Don Chauls
8:05 am on Friday, August 3, 2012
to Siobhan Hullinger re Aug 3 comment:
1. I agree that Michael Moore's films are as political as Hilary Clinton: The Movie.
2. I agree that ALL groups, including unions, should be under the same rules.
3. Most importantly, the key objective ought to be to get money out of politics. Currently, all Senators and representatives spend many hours EVERYday just raising money. I would much rather have them study and discuss issues and prepare legislation. But if they don't spend hours raising $, they lose. For me, the bottom line is that campaigns should be government-funded and that advertisements - by anyone - should be severely limited (balanced by far more debates and other lengthier opportunities to learn candidates' views).
4. More important than overturning Citizens United is the need for a constitutional amendment to overturn Buckley v Valeo.
siobhan hullinger
8:20 am on Friday, August 3, 2012
I can't say I agree with government controlled campaign financing - I don't have alot of faith in that kind of administration. Career politicians would end up controlling directives and I am strongly opposed to the "political class". I am a term limits gal.
I'll look into the '76 case Buckley v Valeo - thanks
Don Chauls
9:59 am on Friday, August 3, 2012
The only approach that would work to get money out of politics is to make money unnecessary (or only slightly necessary) in order to get re-elected. There has to be a system under which each party nominee can campaign effectively, get his/her message out to voters equally as well as his/her opponent - without spending a lot of money. The biggest single expenditure is always TV time. If that expenditure were eliminated from the mix, money would become far less important.
My suggestion is a system under which the government 1) provides a fixed amount of money to each candidate, 2) organizes and pays for opportunities for each candidate to present views on TV but 3) forbids other TV advertising, and 4) restricts people from donating big bucks. (To prevent favoritism, the rules for #1 and #2 should be decided long before the candidates are nominated.)
Do you have a better suggestion?
siobhan hullinger
10:10 am on Friday, August 3, 2012
I agree with your points but I have a fundamental issue with government control. Currently, not every candidate gets goevernmnt funds - which i have a huge problem with. I believe you need to have 15% of votes in order to receive the government funds for your campaign - please correct me if I am wrong. Why can't any candidate get funds? Why can't every candidate be included in the debates? Media controls that as well. I don't have the answers but I certainly agree with your points. I just don't see how it would be possible to get money out of politics without violating the first amendment. Reform is needed - absolutely - but it would be difficult to have real reform with the "political class" we have. Term limits, in my opinion, will go a long way in correcting some of the issues.
Don Chauls
12:53 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
To avoid 'government control', there could be a truly independent election commission, with equal Republican-Democatic membership. If it sets the rules before either party has identified its candidates, this minimizes (granted, not eliminates) potential difficulties.
(Note the way Congress has avoided political pressure on military base closings, which otherwise would be substantial, since every Congressman would oppose closings in their own district. Congress established a bipartisan commission, then Congress has no legal right to complain about any single decision; but must have an all-or-nothing vote.)
The 15% figure you reference is for primary elections. My suggestion only applies AFTER the parties have identified their candidates. (Some other process is needed to reduce the influence of money for primaries - but let's solve one problem at a time.)
My suggestion DOES violate the first amendment according to Buckley v Valeo (which equated money with speech). That is why there is a need for a constitutional amendment.
I am neutral on the issue of term limits. There have been some long-serving Senators and Representatives who were very good. On the oher had, I do like the idea of citizen-politicians.
siobhan hullinger
5:38 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Another "campaign" strategy I have trouble with is the paid access. Buying a seat at breakfast for a candidate for 15k or more is beyond reasonable. It's gross and they all do it. Only the wealthiest have the face to face access which is a large part of the problem. How they get it is just as problematic