LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Vote Sen. Scott Brown Out

Resident Don Chauls says keeping the incumbent in office will result in an increase of the national debt and unemployment.

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

Sid Bourne July 21, 2012 at 01:05 PM
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.
x July 21, 2012 at 01:28 PM
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 July 21, 2012 at 02:02 PM
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
A concerned Citizen July 21, 2012 at 04:15 PM
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
Don Chauls July 21, 2012 at 06:52 PM
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.
x July 21, 2012 at 07:01 PM
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
pmotw July 21, 2012 at 11:47 PM
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.
Mike Hullinger July 22, 2012 at 03:16 AM
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 July 22, 2012 at 11:51 AM
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 July 22, 2012 at 11:51 AM
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 July 22, 2012 at 12:32 PM
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 July 22, 2012 at 12:35 PM
Do some research and you will see the effective tax rate paid by the top quintile of wage earners.
Mike Hullinger July 22, 2012 at 01:10 PM
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 July 22, 2012 at 02:25 PM
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!
SueChap July 22, 2012 at 03:00 PM
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.
x July 22, 2012 at 03:02 PM
"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
SueChap July 22, 2012 at 03:06 PM
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.
Jeanabella July 22, 2012 at 03:40 PM
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!
x July 22, 2012 at 04:01 PM
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 July 24, 2012 at 11:01 AM
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 July 24, 2012 at 11:49 AM
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.
Liz July 24, 2012 at 01:49 PM
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.
Liz July 24, 2012 at 01:57 PM
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".
siobhan hullinger August 03, 2012 at 11:27 AM
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
Don Chauls August 03, 2012 at 12:04 PM
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 August 03, 2012 at 12:20 PM
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 August 03, 2012 at 01:59 PM
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 August 03, 2012 at 02:10 PM
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 August 03, 2012 at 04:53 PM
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 August 03, 2012 at 09:38 PM
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


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »