As a courtesy to those who read this column, I feel obligated not to ignore Mr. Albert L. Kiser who rebutted my Jan 19 column entitled "Who are the real job creators?" Frankly, Mr. Kiser's reply was as coherent as John Boehner answering questions from David Gregory, host of Meet the Press. When asked why Boehner is obstructing the passage of a clean payroll tax cut extension for those making under $106,800 when Republicans are such ardent advocates of tax cuts, Boehner replies that American people need jobs. High corporate tax rates and regulations are stifling job creation. What?
Nevertheless, I will humor Mr. Kiser. Albert said "...Stimulus of almost $1 trillion = zero jobs. Talk to an economist. It's a fact." That was news to me. Having exhausted any chance of finding a credible economist saying this, I stumbled upon this goody -- Politifact's top 10 lies of 2011. Number 1 was "1. A National Republican Senatorial Committee ad says stimulus created "zero jobs." Need more evidence? Feb 4 Bee stated that 257,000 private sector jobs were added in January. That is on top of 23 consecutive months of private sector job growth. Not enough?
Google "private sector job growth chart." Kiser's remaining remarks smacks of a similar flavor leaving no need to entertain them. Instead, I'll leave you with this anecdote. I attended Fidelity Investments' market update presentation for last quarter. Their research revealed economic indicators show modest improvement; improved employment trend; broad-based housing stabilization; corporate sector remains robust; and solid corporate earnings growth expected in 2012. The thrust was that macro-economic indicators were positive and trending positive.
I asked the speaker why, in light of their research, the GOP candidates are saying Obama is leading us off a cliff. He said it was political. When pressed he said it just isn't true. Someone in the audience chimed, I don't care what your data or fancy charts say. Obama is destroying this country. Hmmm. Apparently facts are secondary to ideology with some.
Not to be outdone by Albert M. Kiser, J.R. Froelich wrote "Learn more at the Oakhurst library" the following week. Mr. Froelich accused Mr. Cavanaugh, Ms. Schemerhorn and yours truly of being socialists, communists and ignorant of American history.
Judging by these ad-hominem attacks it seems Mr. Froelich is waxing sentimental over the 1950s anti-communist movement driven by Wisconsin Senator Joe McCarthy. Just for the record, McCarthy's tactics and his inability to substantiate his claims led him to be censured by the United States Senate. I suspect if judged, Mr. Froelich would suffer the same fate.
I agree that we all need to learn more at the Oakhurst library. That would not exclude Mr. Froelich. One thing Mr. Froelich might learn is that the social benefits he has enjoyed and enjoys today -- Medicare, Social Security, a public education, 40 hour work week, vacation, worker safety protections, overtime pay and the like -- is socialism or can be construed as socialism. In fact the very people who fought and died for those social benefits in that era were attacked with the same fervor as Mr. Froelich's yet those same attackers would be loathe to give that up today.
J.R. says socialism is anti-American. If so, then Mr. Froelich must be anti-American. In fact, all Americans are anti-American. There's nothing more American than fighting for fairness, equality and social and religious justice. That is what the American Revolution was about. Doing so today with economic inequality and destruction of the middle class follows that patriotic tradition.
In fact, today's activists are the American patriots of the Revolution fighting for freedom from unfairness, inequality and injustice. Mr. Froelich doesn't understand that his opposition puts him squarely in the role of the British oppressor.
This leads me to believe that Froelich like many blindly who invoke God, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are saying it by rote without understanding what it means. Are they saying that God would disapprove of fairness, equality and social and environmental protections? Are these tenets not essential for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? My reaction to Mr. Froehlich's letter would be the same as that of Mr. Kiser -- What?