Letters to the Editor
bostonMA
Published Letters: 39 Editor's Choice: 22
-
Tax, spend and rob
[Read the article: What to expect when you're expecting inflation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let's just imagine for a moment that we're retired and living on a modest fixed income, of which a large part is a social security check.
What is the effect on this household of increasing prices for gas and food that are dismissed by the government as "volatile", and therefore excluded from cost of living adjustments to social security payments? Do these retirees care if price inflation is permanently embedded in the economy or not? They still have to pay more and more for milk, bread, electricity, gas, and home heating oil week after week, and may have little ability to adjust for these price changes in their spending.
This policy robs millions of social security recipients by redefining the "cost" in "cost of living adjustment."
I have read that Phillips estimates that social security payments would be 70% higher today had the government not systematically tried to understate inflation over the years through a series of manipulations. These include exclusion of food and energy prices, owner equivalent rent calculations, product substitution, geometric weighting, and hedonic adjustment for improving product "quality." Each and every one had the effect of lowering official inflation numbers.
The argument that inflation expectations are the cause of price increases is the kind of distraction that allows the fundamental causes to go unaddressed. Price inflation is caused by the expanding money supply, driven by massive government and consumer borrowing. Government spending must slow substantially, tax receipts must rise, and consumers must slow borrowing to fuel their consumption. The Fed can start all parties on this path by simply raising rates, reducing the incentive to borrow.
Whether we like it or not, soon enough the world will do this for us, as they demand higher interest rates to compensate for the rapidly depreciating US dollars that we use to pay them back.
-
Obama - Sebelius
[Read the article: Who will Obama choose as veep? Nope, you're wrong]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]At the outset let me say that I do not support the candidates or platform of either major party. These comments are simply an attempt to think through the question Shapiro poses.
Obama will only find closure for his campaign and his party from charges of sexism leveled by the Clinton campaign by choosing another strong, accomplished female leader over Hillary herself. This strategy is essential to silence the incessant media infatuation with disenfranchisement of "Hillary's 18 million voters", and will demonstrate an early leadership victory in his ability to cleverly unite a divided party. It will also create substantial media attention by the prospect of another historical constraint being shattered, especially since Obama is virtually certain to be the next president.
This leaves Obama one choice: Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius
Obama's choice of Sebelius would reject the idea that a VP candidate must bring state electoral votes and often tradeoffs in qualifications to be considered. She is also not so nationally prominent as to further diminish Obama's limited experience by contrast. Sebelius will instead affirm Obama's core message of change and unity. She is compatible with his candidacy for several reasons, although there are many more beyond these:
- Substantive executive experience
- Unifying, bipartisan reputation in Kansas
- No elitist branding
- Endorsed Obama very early
- Pro-choice
Sebelius was considered in 2004 by John Kerry. Carville and Clark have both publicly named her as an intelligent choice, further positive factors for current Clinton backers. Sebelius' term limit requires her to leave the governor's position by 2010.
The logic of an Obama - Sebelius ticket is compelling.
-
"Why do they hate us so much?"
[Read the article: The insanity inside Guantánamo]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Isn't the wrong party asking?
If Americans were willing to ask themselves this question instead of silently accepting the abuses carried out in their name as though they risked expulsion for failing some patriotic purity test, perhaps they would recognize a blatant evil and injustice for what it is.
The media's broad abdication in this period will be judged by history to be instrumental in allowing these crimes to be perpetrated for years on end, much like the neighbor who willfully ignores screams for help coming through the wall.
I can think of few better ways to recruit and motivate genuine terrorists than what we have shown the world of our true soul with Guantanamo.