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.
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.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment