Goodbye Melon Days?

Dear Members of the Community,

After another disappointing meeting without any attendance besides the officers and one couple, it is becoming clear that Thomson Melon Days is coming to an end. It is sad when only a handful of people have shown interest and willingness to help in this community event.

We will have a meeting on May 4th to vote on discontinuing Melon Days at 6:00 pm at the Sunrise Restaurant in Thomson.

Thomson Melon Day Officers

A Strong Effective Government Needed

Larry J. Farrell’s letter to the editor in the Prairie Advocate of April 20, 2011 is typical of many letters to the editor that I read that make many charges without citing one shed of hard evidence to back up the writer’s opinions.

Mr. Farrell states that “It (the capitalist economy) worked wonderfully until the liberals got control.” He seems to have overlooked the 19th Century and early 20th Century when the capitalists were in full control.

He might not have thought so if he had been a Midwestern wheat farmer who found that monopolistic railroads controlled his ability to ship wheat to market.

He might not have thought so if he had been a wage worker who worked twelve hour days without workers compensation, a minimum wage or vacations.

He might not have thought so if he had been a victim of the financial panics of 1830, 1857, 1873, 1902-03, 1907, and 1929 or 2009 when he might have lost everything including his job, his home and his family.

He might not have thought so as he visited a soup kitchen or a food pantry after losing his job in 1930’s or for that matter in 2009-11 as the result of economic bubbles that the government failed to control because the conservative market was the solution to all of our economic problems.

He might not have thought so if he had been one of the elderly prior to the advent of Social Security when the vast majority of this nation’s elderly were dirt poor, sick and dependent on family or charity for their day to day existence.

With regard to Social Security (SS), an employee/employer tax supported insurance program, it is important to realize that its tax base, upon which its stability depends, has been eroded as the result of middle class wages having stagnated since the 1970’s because of well paying industrial job losses, the cap on SS taxable wages and global wage pressure. Much of this pressure could be relieved if the cap on taxable wages were increased. A tax increase is fully justified since the wage distribution curve has been sharply shifted to the right over the last 30 years, leaving millions of wage dollars untaxed.

Finally, it should be noted that Medicare expenses have drastically increased over the years as the result of new drugs and new medical procedures. Medicare is forbidden by congress to negotiate drug prices with the drug companies as a result of drug industry lobbying. Additionally, doctors are paid by procedure, many of which are given with little effectiveness toward the end of life. These problems have not helped contain Medicare expenses.

So, while it is easy to blame government and liberals for our problems as Mr. Farrell is wont to do, I doubt that many of us would want to go back to the good old days of every man for himself. We have recently had a good taste of that on Wall Street in 2009, the aftereffects of which we are still dealing with.

There are solutions to our problems if we can get over the idea that government is the problem. Given the Constitution they wrote, the Founding Fathers clearly understood that without a strong effective government which governs in the public interest, there can be no solutions.

Lyle Sykora

Lake Carroll, IL

Gold ‘n Gas

Everyone seems a bit upset over the phenomenal rise in gasoline prices. This month, the national average price of a gallon of gasoline is $3.90. One year ago, in April 2010, the price was $2.91.

The President has blamed “speculators,” and is going to launch an investigation. Like three previous presidents, this will divert attention from the real problem, and, like his predecessors, the investigation will show nothing.

But think a bit more about what speculators do – if they think the price of oil is going to increase, they buy oil at today’s prices. Their purchase increases demand, temporarily raising the price of oil. But, in order to profit, they have to sell their oil at some future point when prices are higher. At that point, their sale increases the supply of oil, which lowers the price of oil. So, in the long run, they don’t have a lasting overall effect on the price of oil. By raising the price of oil when it’s cheap, and lowering it when it’s higher priced, successful speculators actually smooth out price changes and remove volatility from the market. Of course, unsuccessful speculators have the opposite effect, but in a free market, they don’t survive, and success becomes the dominant market force.

So, if speculators aren’t the major problem, just what is? Consider this: One year ago, gold was $1,145/oz. Today, it’s $1,508/oz. One year ago, an ounce of gold would buy 393 gallons of gas, today it will buy 386 gallons, pretty close to the same amount. Now, the value of gold doesn’t really change much – if you plant a tree and walk away, you can come back in 50 years, and you’ll have a valuable source of lumber or firewood. If you plant an ounce of gold, in 50 years, you’ll have an ounce of gold. There’s a reason we refer to anything which is rock-stable as “the Gold Standard.” The price of everything else revolves around gold, not vice versa.

It takes 34% more dollars to buy a gallon of gas than it did a year ago, and it takes 32% more dollars to buy an ounce of gold. It’s not the gas and gold which have grown more valuable; it’s the dollar which has become less valuable. This was totally predicted when the Federal Reserve announced Quantitative Easing, which is just a devious way of saying “printing money.” Printing this money, when there is no corresponding economic growth to justify it, decreases the value of all existing dollars. This is exactly what has happened prior to economic collapse in country after country, but we have kept the presses running.

So why can’t the Fed just turn off the printing presses? For one thing, the release of money stimulates the economy, although many of us will argue the resulting loss of value of a paycheck or savings account is merely re-distributing wealth from workers and senior citizens to banks. The second, and equally disconcerting, reason is the decreasing demand for U.S. debt. U.S. Treasury Bonds continually come due, and must be paid. Normally, this is done at Treasury Auctions, where blocks of newly-issued Treasury bonds are sold. This recycles old debt, funds newly-acquired debt (aka deficit spending), and pays the interest on current debt (yes, we’re borrowing money to pay the interest on our debt!).

At recent Treasury Auctions, the low interest rate paid on U.S. bonds, combined with concerns over the fiscal responsibility of the government, has resulted in an insufficient number of buyers for our debt. In order to avoid defaulting on deficit spending, the Fed is forced to print money to purchase unsold bonds.

When the President and Congress try to divert attention to oil companies, foreign dictators, or speculators as the villains in high gas prices, we should not let them get away with it. If they want to see the real villains, don’t waste our money on investigations. They need only look in a mirror!

Terry Smith

Lanark, IL

Teamwork, Economics and Government

By Larry Plachno

Decades of research into social problems have shown that our society works very much like a team. When we cooperate, work together, and do what is best for others, we all come out ahead. Most social problems are usually caused when people put themselves first and ignore what is best for others and society.

This is not a new idea but has been around since the beginning of recorded history. Confucius is credited with admonishing us to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” It is also an eye-opening fact that decades of computer statistics and reports on social problems echo and confirm basic Christian teachings on love of God and love of neighbor. When we work together, we all come out ahead and become a winning team.

Ongoing research into social problems shows that the two most important factors in improving things are traditional marriage and parental supervision of children. The statistics surrounding marriage are very positive while statistics show that kids are better off spending time with their parents than with peers or others.

Another interesting thought is that available wages in our society are set by employers and typically based on sales or some similar criteria. No government agency and no private group exists that increases or decreases available wages based on people entering or leaving the work force. Hence, available wages are like a pie. When you split it among more people, each then gets a smaller portion.

One of the major problems with our society is that too many people make decisions based on what they want today without thinking about how those decisions will harm themselves and society tomorrow. Let’s delve into this a little deeper by looking at numbers comparing marriage, parental supervision of children, and available wages. I will offer three basic models. For the sake of simplicity I will use 100 people since that works best with percentages although you could easily use most any numbers and get the same basic result. Hence, we will talk about 50 men and 50 women.

Our first model is what might be called the traditional model. The 50 men and 50 women are married and believe in the family wage. The husband works while the wife stays home with the kids. Simple math tells us that since there are 50 workers, each household, on average, gets two percent of the available wages and the kids have excellent parental supervision.

Moving on, let’s assume that these people decide to eliminate the family wage and send the mothers to work. Since we now have 100 workers, each individual now gets, on average, only one percent of the available wages. However, since there are two workers per family, each family still gets two percent of the available wages. However, parental supervision of children suffers because Mom is no longer home with the kids.

You might want to take a few steps back and think about who gains and who loses with this move. The big corporations come out ahead because they now get two workers for the same wages. Government also comes out ahead because it now gets two salaries to tax. The big losers are kids and society because parental supervision of children has gone out the window.

Taking this one additional step, let’s look at a third model where the people decide to become pro-choice on marriage. Here, our 100 people either decide not to marry or get divorced. We now have 100 households with one worker per household. Hence, each household gets only one percent of the available wages.

Which of these three models do you think is best for society?

Unfortunately, the problem of parental supervision of children goes beyond that. The statistics are terrible on children raised without a father. Boys raised without a father to teach them good and evil are statistically more likely to commit major crimes. Girls raised without a father are more likely to have children out of wedlock and be on welfare.

Married people are statistically less likely to need government assistance than single people. Hence, for many unmarried mothers the government becomes a pseudo husband and a pseudo father, and typically does a rotten job at both. The bottom line is that as marriage decreases, government increases and government spending increases to fill the gap. Which is better for our society, more marriage or more government?

What Does a Government Shutdown Look Like?

Dr. Harold Pease

The paranoia with respect to a government shutdown is amazing. The hysteria peddlers using this terminology, and the media that purposely play to it, must know these two words emit such an extremist, emotional response. It appears designed to frighten the least informed either for or against the other party, thus the terminology and subsequent blame game.

So what does a government shut down look like? Do the president and vice president resign now that the government ends? No? Does Congress fly out of Washington D. C. the following day and cease to draw their pay, and the Supreme Court cease to deliberate on constitutional questions? Does the army come home and cease to protect us? NO, No, No! Do states, counties, and cities no longer function? No again, they have their own tax base and cops, prisons, and teachers remain in place.

There will never be a government shut down because none of these things will ever happen short of an overthrow of the government from within or a successful invasion from without. So cease the media frenzy and subsequent over-reaction.

How do we know this? Because we had a five-day shutdown between November 14 and November 19, 1995, and a second one of 21 days, between December 16, and January 6, 1996, and none of these things happened. No! Not even one. In fact, the public as a whole didn’t even notice. So what did happen? “The Federal government of the United States put non-essential government workers on furlough and suspended non-essential services…(Wikipedia).” Essentially all went on as before except some paychecks were a few days late. Apparently the federal government does (when forced to do so) know what non-essential services are after all, and is capable of closing them if it has the will.

So at worst a government shutdown is still really only a partial shutdown of non-essential services. So the federal government goes on a long overdue diet and gets back to the basics. This is precisely the Tea Party position (“cut it or shut it”) and the reason they do not fear such. If you have a budget of $3.7 trillion and you have taxes covering only $2 trillion simple math tells you that either you double taxes or cut half of your expenses. You simply can’t keep increasing the national debt, now nearing $14.300 trillion, which has been laid on the backs of our new slaves—our children.

When you have cancer you must surgically remove the infected tissue. Of course it is painful, but the longer you wait the more painful, drastic, and life threatening it becomes. Most of the programs cut in both shutdowns, were not areas of clear constitutional authority as defined in Article I, Section 8, so in time such cuts should become permanent cuts or be subjected to the amending process for appropriate authority.

Usually diets have some benefits in and of themselves. In the case of the federal government shutdowns of 1995 and 1996, both parties benefited: Democrats, under President Bill Clinton, because thereafter he was credited with “the first four consecutive balanced budgets since the 1920’s” and Republicans because they retained control of both houses of Congress largely because of the popularity of their hard line on the budget (Wikipedia).

So a government shutdown is really only a partial shutdown that may actually be healthy. Lets call it such in the future so that we don’t frighten the less informed?

Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

How “Radical” is the Ryan Plan?

By Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson

Question for those of you concerned about the size of federal debts and deficits: Would you endorse a plan which would add another five or six trillion dollars to the federal debt over the next decade while increasing Uncle Sam’s annual expenditures by $1.1 trillion? If so, you’re in luck. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) recently unveiled just such a plan.

Naturally, Democrats immediately denounced Ryan’s plan as “radical.” They think the increases in spending and debt should be much larger. It shows how far the goalposts have been moved in American politics that adding multi-trillion-dollars of debt is the most conservative proposal anyone in government has made. How would you like your government debt, Mr. or Ms. Citizen—gargantuan or astronomical?

The Ryan Plan, if implemented (more on that in a moment), would cut $179 billion from President Obama’s planned spending in 2012 and another $241 billion in 2013. Why is it not “radical” to raise spending by $787 billion in one year, like Obama did in 2009, but “radical” to propose a decrease of $179 billion?

Ryan proposes to reform Medicare and Medicaid so that they don’t bankrupt the country. Why is that demonized as “war on the elderly and poor” (the phraseology of Illinois Democrat Jan Schakovsky), but nobody talks about waging “war on the young” by saddling the rising generation with trillions of dollars of debt?

Ryan’s plan is bold in comparison to the status quo in Washington, but it isn’t radical. You want “radical?” How about getting government out of the medical field entirely? Since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s, medical costs have soared far beyond the rate of inflation. More than that, market competition has been diminished and fraud and inefficiency have ballooned apace with the growth of these two medical bureaucracies. (Why do liberals rant and rave about the Pentagon’s inefficiencies, but remain silent about the similar inefficiencies of Medicare and Medicaid?) Ryan’s plan is statist to the core, promising seniors large government subsidies with which to choose from a slate of government-regulated health care plans.

At this stage, Ryan’s plan is academic. Its combination of spending cuts, tax cuts, and devolution of administration of government programs from the federal to the state level—while a significant improvement over the fiscal insanity of recent years—is dead in the water until at least 2013.

If you doubt that, look at the recently concluded “government shutdown” soap opera. The government is going broke, the Republicans were asking for a giveback of less than 10 percent of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid spending increases, but the Democrats—famous for extolling bipartisanship—threatened to shut down the government rather than make such a modest compromise.

It will be interesting to see how long Ryan’s fellow Republicans in the House stand by his proposals. The coming vote is largely symbolic. The real test will be when Republicans have to face the voters in close re-election races next year. A majority of Americans may say that they favor reduced federal spending and smaller deficits, but when push comes to shove, how many will vote for a legislator who actually shrinks programs from which voters benefit?

Even if Ryan’s plan, by some miracle, were to be enacted, nothing fundamental would change. Uncle Sam will remain a gigantic, meddling nanny, interfering with our lives and progressively eroding our liberty, entangling us in a corrupt network of special privileges that murder justice and bury the rule of law.

Ryan’s plan is a futile attempt to square the circle. He is trying to find a way to preserve an inherently flawed system—a democratic transfer society—whereby government somehow takes care of all of us without eventually spending itself into bankruptcy.

The Ryan Plan is not radical; that is, it doesn’t get to the root of the problem. It never questions the legitimacy of government redistribution of wealth. The mechanisms, rationale, and justification for Big Government remain unchallenged. Although a significant step in the right direction (i.e., less federal spending), Paul Ryan’s plan ultimately is not a cure for what ails us.

Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and fellow for economic and social policy with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.

Capitol Report

By Jim Sacia, State Representative, 89th District

Memorial Day May 30, Veterans Day November 11 – two days we set aside to honor the service of those who responded to the call. We owe them that, especially those who gave “their last full measure”.

Sometimes the record needs to be set straight. “No event in American history is more misunderstood than the Vietnam War. It was misreported then, and it is misremembered now. Rarely have so many people been so wrong about so much. Never have the consequences of their misunderstanding been so tragic.” (No More Vietnams by Richard Nixon)

A commonly held myth is most American soldiers were addicted to drugs and guilt-ridden about their role in the war. Here are the facts “91% of Vietnam Veterans say they are glad they served, 74% said they would serve again even knowing the outcome, there is no difference in drug usage between Vietnam Veterans and non veterans of the same age group.” (From a Veterans Administration study in a speech given by General William Westmoreland in July 1986)

Other common misconceptions that need to be rectified – no, a high percentage did not go to prison; less than one half of one percent of Vietnam Veterans have been jailed for crimes; 97% were discharged under honorable conditions, a very similar percentage as ten years prior to Vietnam; Vietnam Veterans’ personal income exceeds that of our non-veteran age group by 18% and they have lower unemployment according to Lt. General Barry McCaffrey in a speech at “the Wall” Memorial Day of 1993.

Many believe that most Vietnam Veterans were draftees. The facts are two thirds of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers while two thirds of the men who served in WWII were drafted. Approximately 70% of those who were killed in Vietnam were volunteers.

Another common belief is that a disproportionate number of men serving and being killed in Vietnam were poor and they were black. The facts are 86% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasian, 12.5% were black, and the balance were other races. The war was not fought by only poor and uneducated, as often reported. At the time, Vietnam Servicemen were the best educated forces our nation had ever sent into combat with at least 79% with a high school education. Those higher educated had a slightly higher risk of dying as they were often infantry officers or pilots.

Of the 58,148 men and women killed in Vietnam, the average age was 23.11 years. 11,465 were under the age of 20. A common myth is that the average age of an infantryman fighting in Vietnam was age 19 when in fact it was 22. The average age of a man fighting in WWII was 26.

A common misconception is that fighting in Vietnam was not as intense as other wars. The facts are the average infantryman fighting in the South Pacific in WWII saw forty days of combat in four years. The average infantryman in Vietnam saw about two hundred forty days of combat in one year thanks to the mobility of the helicopter.

I will never dispute that the men and women of the WWII era are our greatest generation but the men and women who fought in Vietnam are owed an often overlooked sincere debt of gratitude.

As always, you can reach me, Sally or Barb at or e-mail us at . You can also visit my website at www.jimsacia.com. It’s always a pleasure to hear from you.