A Letter to the Editor in the Daily Republic last Monday

[toddito]

Socialist liberal ideas just don't add upIn her letter to the editor (DR, May 24) Nancy Petersen represents the classic example of a socialist liberal. Her views clouded by her greed. Below, read the truth

Comments

Responding to the letter

[toddito]

Nope, I was amused because Guy seemed absolutely ridiculous.

First of all, countries more socialist than us have done quite well, and after we started becoming more socialist during the depression we saw unprecedented economic expansion. Not really a failure by any means.

As for the comments about unions and wages, corporations are essentially unions of suppliers. Companies push wages artificially downward by having control over a large number of jobs, just as unions can push wages artificially upwards by having control over a large number of workers. Just like unions, corporations use their money to buy politicians and get power, only corporations are much better at it than unions. And unions have much more interest in the well being of the worker than the corporations, because unions work for workers, whereas corporations work for stockholders.

The taxes argument is particularly inane. Calling a flat dollar tax to every person the only fair system in not indisputable. In fact, it is very easy to dispute. Taxes are used to provide services to the people the government is protecting. However, people are NOT equally served or protected under the government. A rich person tends to receive much better protection of his/her possessions than a poor person, so he/she should pay more. Internal improvements such as roads have a much larger positive financial impact on the owner of a company than the individual workers, so the company/owner should pay a larger share than each worker.

The United States constitution never guaranteed a free education. That is why education is not supplied by the federal government. It is the product of local government. The people in each state chose to supply free education. The federal government assists in funding education because education is vital to the American economy. Countries that do not educate their people cannot compete on the world market in much other than agriculture, so our power over the world is dependent on an educated workforce. True, some people are home-schooled very well. However, many aren't, and most American families cannot spare a parent to teach their children full time instead of being employed. Most American's need our teachers. In fact, from my experience in the classroom I can honestly say that the largest factor I saw in the success of students was a small class size, so if anything we need MORE teachers.

As for social security, I admit, that was not in the constitution either. That is the product of history, necessity, and a caring populous. After the depression an overwhelming segment of society was left with nothing to fall back on. This was largely the result of bad economic policy and imperfect information about the market, not of the American people. To prevent much of the country from starving, and the older generation further bankrupting their heirs, social security was set up. That first generation got a free ride, sort of. Now people who collect are people who paid into it all their lives. By working and paying into social security we ARE being responsible for our own retirement. We pay now so we can be paid later. The children are not bankrupted by it, just as we are not bankrupted by it. The only problem comes if politicians are irresponsible and try to eliminate the program rather than making necessary adjustments. Eliminate it and the promise is broken, everyone's retirement funds are stolen.

I do not have Ms. Peterson's original letter, so I cannot speak to her knowledge of the Constitution, democracy and fairness, equality and justice. However, I do not think that Guy has shown much, if any, knowledge of these concepts either.