⇒ The Omaha paper will see the Lincoln paper’s three liberal letters and raise them four conservatives

If today was a bounty of liberal thought on the op-ed pages of the Lincoln Journal Star it was much the same for the Omaha World Herald in terms of conservative writers. Now, the Omaha paper generally publishes 12-15 letters to the editor per day, making them a reliable source of interesting letters, so it’s not as surprising to see a spate of pretty conservative letters, particularly since the Omaha World Herald leans to the right. And while liberals scored a shut-out in the Lincoln paper, the Omaha paper publishes enough letters that 5 of the 13 today were relatively non-political. The remaining letters were various shades of conservative, with four in particular showing a rather impressive strain of conservative thought.

First up is an irresistible little letter titled “How I define ‘liberal'”:

It appears to me that [an earlier letter writer], an apparent liberal, doesn’t know what the word “liberal” means. Let me explain it in a conservative kind of way:

A liberal is a person who wants to take the hard-earned money that I earn and give it to someone who has not earned it–without my permission.

I hope this will steer those who don’t know what “liberal” means in the “right” direction.

It appears to me that the letter writer does not actually know what his taxes go to support. Since income taxes are a pretty big chunk of change, let’s take a look at the 2007 Federal Budget broken up by type of spending to see what his taxes support:

2007 Federal Budget. Source: Washington Post.

The largest share goes to Social Security, which almost by definition is money supporting people who have earned it since you get Social Security based on past income. The next largest share is national defense, which I assume the writer fully supports. Medicare, like Social Security, goes to support the retired. Somehow I doubt the letter writer is referring to the elderly when he talks about people who haven’t earned his support. That brings us to 54% of the total Federal budget.

And finally we come to the section of the budget that I imagine he is envisioning when he complains about taxes going to support lazy bums. “Income security” programs include unemployment insurance, temporary assistance for needy families (commonly known as welfare), and health programs aimed at children, the poor, and the disabled. I guess the children and those disabled from birth haven’t really done much to earn his financial support either, but I doubt that those are the people he’s talking about either. I imagine his real gripe is with the fictional “welfare queens.” However, anyone who’s taken the time to read the TANF requirements will quickly find that no one is getting rich off of the program. So in the end, the part of taxes he doesn’t like is about equal to the amount we spend paying down the national debt.

Well, allow me to offer my equally-glib definition of a conservative: A conservative is a person who wants to enjoy the services supported by the government without paying to support them. I’m pretty sure that’s not what conservatism is about, but sometimes these letters make me wonder.

Next up is a letter hearkening back to the better times of the 50s and complaining about Obama. You know, that candidate who would have had a tough time voting in the 50s had he lived then:

Read Full Post »

⇒ Three liberal Lincoln letters

The local Lincoln paper, like Lincoln itself, is more liberal than the state as a whole. Its editorials tend to be more liberal, oftentimes endorsing Democratic candidates, and articles pointing out the latest breach by the Bush administration will make the front page, as opposed to their placement in the more conservative Omaha paper, where such articles will be buried. But the letters are usually more representative of the state as a whole, so it was a pleasant surprise today that all three were relatively liberal. The first warmed my heart by bringing up the renewable energy tax credits:

What is Congress waiting for? They left Washington without addressing the current energy, climate and oil situations, all of which are extremely discouraging.

They failed to renew clean energy tax credits, so government incentive programs to support the solar and wind industries will expire at the end of this year, resulting in job losses and lost opportunities to promote the generation of electricity from clean sources.

We the people are ready to go greener, to quit depending on high-priced foreign oil, to ride cleaner mass transit, to go with affordable wind and solar power, and a healthier climate. Congress let us down.

How you can tell this is a liberal letter: it doesn’t refer to the “Democratic Congress”, it mentions the climate crisis, and it talks about mass transit and wind and solar power. I do think it would have benefited from more specifics, particularly on how wind and solar can benefit Nebraska. We are the 6th highest state for potential wind energy in the nation. Nebraska is also in a unique position to take advantage of renewable energy resources because we’re the only state in the nation to be served entirely with public power, and we have been since 1949. Public power has been a real boon to the state, giving it rates lower than 90% of other cities in the nation. In addition, power generation is governed by the public, giving us more power to require a move to renewable energies. In other news, T. Boone Pickens, the man with the plan for harvesting wind power, will be speaking in Lincoln on August 20th, so I expect to see more letters on this issue.

The next letter, and shortest of the three, is probably the most controversial by Nebraska standards since it deals with “the gays”:

On July 27, the Journal Star featured articles about the foster care system in Nebraska. While the major focus of the stories was the relatively high rate of turnover in case workers, it is clear that the system is simply overloaded with children.

The Health and Human Services System policy of excluding gay and lesbian foster parents makes even less sense now than when it was first implemented. Just as the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy discards valuable personnel, HHSS policy restricts the supply of potential foster parents. In the interests of children caught in an overburdened system, it is time for the state to change its policy.

Short, sweet and to the point. I’m looking forward to the rabid replies to this one. Because really, who ever tires of Leviticus?

Read Full Post »

⇒ More questions, more answers

A recent editorial from the York News-Times, the local York, Nebraska paper (not to be confused with the New York Times) gets right to the point with the title “Questions for the Left.” Being on the left, I decide to offer some answers. What can I say, us lefties are big softies.

There are many things those of you on the far left need to clarify, questions that need answered.

One of your most vicious attacks on George Bush is that you believe he’s a liar. Well we know that Barack Obama has lied to you about his position on FISA. Additionally, he now says that he’s consistently claimed more troops in Iraq would reduce the violence. However, his recorded statements in opposition of The Surge prove he insisted it would increase violence, not reduce it. By your criteria, he’s lying. Why aren’t you mercilessly attacking him, consistent with your attacks on the President?

There was certainly plenty of anger at Obama’s decision to sign the telecom-immunity bill. That said, one politically-caculated move to the center, while it may gall us, is not even comparable to the 7-and-a-half years of deceit, villainy, and stupidity we’ve had to endure from Still President Bush and his administration. When Obama has started a war based on lies, pillaged the environment, and enriched the wealthy at the expense of the poor, well, maybe we’ll give this analogy more than a passing glance. Also, the word “liar” is usually reserved for those who make a habit out of misleading others.

As for the Surge (or “The Surge” if you really believe it requires the capitalized definite article), I don’t disagree with Obama’s analysis. I’m still dubious about the lasting value of the current military efforts. Certainly things are going better than those first few years (when Bush kept insisting it was all hunky-dory), but it’s not much of an accomplishment to set the bar so low it makes a later mediocre showing look impressive by comparison. Next!

Read Full Post »