Yesterday we began our review of what appeared to be a local "progressive" column in the Sun-News on September 18th by Bill Varuola. You can read his column by clicking
here: The list of what troubles Varuola is long.
“Immigration is not inherently a bad thing,” he asserts. We have no idea what he means by simply stating this self-evident fact. Does anyone with an ounce of credibility argue otherwise? This statement appears to be thinly veiled code. Is it there to help convey the message that anyone who decides they are in favor of border security somehow harbors latent anti-immigrant sentiments?
It is getting harder to divide people into "groups" based on ethnicity, gender, and race in this ever more color blind world we live in. Maybe this is troubling.
What else is troubling Varuola? He says
“Christianity is not by nature first among not-quite equals.” Without getting him to expound on this puzzling statement, it is virtually impossible to even imagine what he means. Is this a diplomatic way of labeling Christians in a vaguely negative light? Maybe other things he says later in his column will help us connect the dots on his view of American Christians.
Here’s some more of what bugs Varuola? He says, “….
the United States are a function of the Constitution and our economy. The traditions we cherish are best lived as examples to those we would have adopt them, not made compulsory without demonstrated value.” Say what? This assertion is another vague stream of consciousness. Perhaps it simply contains far too much nuance for dumb clucks (including those at
News New Mexico) who try to discern its meaning.
Varuola says
“We are not behaving well.” What does this mean? Does he have a mouse in his pocket? He follows this statement with lamentations on the widening use of profanity. In this area we have some common ground with Bill. We must confess that we too fall into the temptation from time to time of letting those darned expletives fly. Maybe we should all spend more time in church (we don’t attend) so that there is more pressure to reform our profanity habits. However, we seriously doubt that more frequent church attendance would be the Varuola recommended solution to the proliferation of society’s profanity problem. Maybe psychotherapy is the answer.
The Varuola biography at the end of his column indicates he cashes a government paycheck. This was duly noted after we perused his troubles with attitudes towards taxes. Let’s summarize. What our attitudes should be about paying taxes is simple according to Vauola. He says paying taxes levied on us from Washington and Santa Fe is
“an exceptional way to participate in the government.” We would argue that paying taxes is not so much “participating” in government as it is a process of FUNDING government. We have many cancelled checks and unfulfilled hopes to support this assertion. And further, if merely tendering currency to another entity constitutes “participation” we want everyone out there to participate with
News New Mexico by sending your participation contributions to us. Checks can be made out to “Participating in News New Mexico.”
Weighing the impact of tax burdens and managing their impact, does not appear to Varuola to be the act of a prudent steward of resources. In Varuola’s mind, these activities seem to be the selfish reduction of one's “collective responsibilities.” And it seems clear that the term “collective” is the operating word in the phrase we reference regarding “responsibilities.” Varuola manages to severely pervert the language of finance in his discussion of resource management and economic policies.
“Right now,” he writes, “…the Obama administration's tax plan wants to indebt us $3 trillion in tax cuts over the next 10 years.” This is some of the most nonsensical gibberish regarding fiscal policy that has ever made it into print. President Obama is proposing no such a thing. The numbers Varuola tosses around come out of thin air. Further Varuola writes,
“….the Republicans would burden us $4 trillion in tax cuts.” Again it is the choice of words that reveals the fact that when it comes to finance and economics, Varuola is extraordinarily naive. Where to begin? First, President Obama has NOT proposed a reduction in tax rates. He is weighing the idea of raising rates.
Varuola’s claim that tax cuts burden “us” is silly. Who is “us.” Does everything belong to the government? Do "we" belong to government thus becoming "us?" Should any money that the government does not confiscate be accounted for as a cost, debt, or burden? Not confiscating money from citizens is not a “cost.” Only people who think everything and everybody belongs to the government use this sort of language. Unfortunately, the financial language contained in the Varuola column pretty much defines the fundamental economic illiteracy of many seemingly well-informed people in America today.
There are many more completely bogus assertions in the Varuola piece. He says
“American corporate chief executive officers make as much as 1,000 times what they pay their production workers while paying lower tax rates.” The claim that higher income earning citizens pay lower tax rates than lower income workers is an absurdity. There is simply no basis for making an absurd statement like this. Frankly we are embarrassed for Varuola. That he would make this silly assertion on print is amazing. It is the intellectual of equivalent of pulling one’s pants down in public.
Mercifully, Varuola finally begins to get to the heart of the problem in America when he says,
“I would like to have seen the Obama administration approach not only the tax structure, but the pending disaster that is Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.” And later he says.
“They've simply been abused by the congressional class to the point where they're not solvent. This is unconscionable.” Unfortunately, the significance of his own observations escapes him.
What does Varuola mean by the phrase
“….abused by the congressional class.” Does this mean he thinks elected officials waste money by the hundreds of billions? Does the fact that spending is completely out of control to the point of causing the destruction of the solvency of these programs mean spending might be considered open for the bulk of the discussion? Perhaps this segment of his column is an intellectual bone or perhaps an olive branch to those in the Tea Party. We actually found it beyond amazing that Varuola never used the phrase “too much government spending” in his entire editorial piece regarding what troubles him about taxes and the national debt. Tomorrow we will explore the commentary Varuola made on America setting up a "Christian State" as well as some amazingly contradictory and inconsistent views on education.
Dissecting Progressive Viewpoints Part II
From The Hill - by Bob Dinneen, president and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association, the national trade association for the U.S. ethanol industry.
Posts
