Gilda DeFerrari – 10/10/12

This page was last updated on October 10, 2012.

Workers benefit by Obama; Gilda DeFerrari; Beaver County Times; October 10, 2012.

Ms. DeFerrari has written at least 10 letters since 2004. Previous letters from Ms. DeFerrari I critiqued are here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“Immediately upon taking office, President Obama took over the task of improving the lives of Americans.”

[RWC] When did our presidents become responsible for “improving the lives of Americans?”

“Women were the first beneficiaries of these improvements when the president signed the bill to end discrimination against women in the workplace. Through the Lily [sic] Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, women are now able to get equal pay for equal work, no longer paid less than men doing the same or equivalent work.”

[RWC] The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was political theater. The primary effect of the law is to extend the statutes of limitations for pay-discrimination claims, probably benefiting trial lawyers more than employees.

You may recall “proof” of sex-based pay discrimination was a statistic that said for every dollar paid a male, a female was paid $0.77. As usual, the claim was bogus.

“Also among his efforts to improve the lives of working Americans he helped protect auto workers jobs, which in turn creates jobs for many other industries. His plans for 10 high-speed rail lines will create tens of thousands of jobs.”

[RWC] All Mr. Obama did was throw our taxpayer dollars at Chrysler and GM to protect labor union management from traditional bankruptcy proceedings while screwing-over the bondholders. GM alone received “$50 billion in TARP bailout funds, a special exemption waiving payment of $45.4 billion in taxes on future profits, an exemption for all product liability on cars sold before the bailout, $360 million in stimulus funds, and the $7,500 tax credit for those who buy the Chevy Volt.” Of that, President Bush directed about $13 billion of our paychecks, pension checks, etc. to this improper use of tax dollars. Just as happens all the time, Chrysler and GM would not have gone out of business had Mr. Obama left our traditional bankruptcy laws play out. Ford didn’t participate in this scam.

We already have high-speed passenger rail service (Acela, run by Amtrak) in the Washington, DC, to Boston corridor. The Boston/Washington run is about seven hours. That’s several hours longer than a plane flight even when you factor in getting to the airport a couple of hours early. On top of that, plane tickets are often cheaper and the planes tend to run more frequently.

If more “high-speed rail lines” are such a good idea, why aren’t private businesses doing them? The answer is CUSTOMERS. There aren’t enough customers willing to pay the fare required to cover the full cost of service (no subsidies) and/or endure the additional travel time. Throwing money at “high-speed rail lines” would be a case of throwing taxpayer paychecks into yet another bottomless pit, like local mass transit and Amtrak, only with a much larger taxpayer price tag.

True high-speed rail is practical (read: cost-effective) only when there is large amount of passenger traffic between large population centers in relatively close proximity. It’s the same reason subways make sense only in large cities; they’re enormously expensive and require huge ridership to cover the costs.

“He put more into the pay envelopes of middle income earners by applying the American principle in taxation that those getting salaries in the millions of dollars should pay high rates on excess income. He has reduced waste and abuse in government contracts, such as Haliburton [sic] was guilty of.”

[RWC] Regarding the “more into the pay envelopes …” comment, I have no idea what Ms. DeFerrari is talking about. If Ms. DeFerrari is referring to the “payroll tax holiday,” we were snookered by the media (left & right) and our elected representatives (left & right). Ever since the passage of H. R. 4853 in December 2010, we heard about how the “employee portion” of the SS tax would drop from 6.2% to 4.2% for 2011. (You can learn about the myth of the employer portion of Medicare and SS taxes in a critique of a Shannon letter-to-the-editor in 2008.) This consistent reporting from all sides caused me to note we were cutting the only funding source for a program already in financial trouble. Unfortunately, at the time I did not read the bill myself. I occasionally redo my research and while doing that for a previous critique I found my previous understanding of H. R. 4853 was wrong. Under Title VI, Section 601, I found the following: “TRANSFERS TO FEDERAL OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE TRUST FUND.—There are hereby appropriated to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund established under section 201 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401) amounts equal to the reduction in revenues to the Treasury by reason of the application of subsection (a). Amounts appropriated by the preceding sentence shall be transferred from the general fund at such times and in such manner as to replicate to the extent possible the transfers which would have occurred to such Trust Fund had such amendments not been enacted.” In other words, the general fund would transfer to SS an amount equivalent to the tax revenue “lost” by the so-called “payroll tax holiday.” All the “payroll tax holiday” did was switch from which of our pockets the SS tax would be taken and necessitate issuing even more federal debt. As a result, even those of us not subject to the SS tax will end up paying SS taxes plus interest via the transfers from the general fund. Not only was there no tax-rate cut, ultimately we end up paying more than we would have otherwise because we will have to pay the interest on the Treasury-issued debt required to fund the scam. This deception reminds me of “Three-Card Monte” or a shell game.

A family getting to keep less and less of what it earns is an “American principle?” Who gets to define “excess income,” Ms. DeFerrari?

As for “waste and abuse in government contracts,” it looks like we’re talking about $8 - $10 billion if every single proposed cut were really cut. That’s a lot of money, but our current annual deficit is in excess of $1 trillion. $8 - $10 billion of $1 trillion is only 0.8% - 1%.

“He has initiated reforms in the health care of Americans that makes health insurance available to 32 million more people. His health care plan prohibits insurance companies from refusing payments for illnesses that people had before the law was enacted. Under the health care act, checkups are free.”

[RWC] As for making “health insurance available to 32 million more people,” even if it were true, who gets to pay for all these people? You get only one guess.

In the second sentence, I think Ms. DeFerrari is referring to pre-existing conditions. Forcing medical insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions is the same as forcing a company to issue a fire insurance policy on a house that’s already burning down. That’s not insurance; it’s a handout and forces up the rates paid by everyone else. Shouldn’t I have the freedom to buy a policy that doesn’t cover pre-existing conditions?

“Health care … checkups are free?” To whom? There ain’t no free lunch; someone must pay. Just like covering pre-existing conditions, providing “free” checkups forces up the rates paid by everyone.

“American men and women are benefiting every day from all these changes and should vote to ensure that these improvements will continue in President Obama’s second term in office.”

[RWC] Sure.