Lynn Coleman Gardner – 10/5/12

This page was last updated on October 8, 2012.

Obama better choice; Lynn Coleman [Gardner]; Beaver County Times; October 5, 2012. Though the letter was signed “Lynn Coleman,” I’m guessing this is the same author who signed her name “Lynn Coleman Gardner,” also of White Township, to previous letters. If any readers know differently, please let me know.

Ms. Gardner has written at least 47 letters since 2005. Previous letters from Ms. Gardner I critiqued are here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“In my opinion, President Barack Obama has done a good job in office.

“First, he inherited a lot on his plate. And Congress, especially the House, has fought him tooth and nail instead of supporting him. That’s like a slap in the face. He still stands strong.”

[RWC] Ms. Coleman appears to forget President Obama had significant Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress for two years (2009-2010), including a period with a filibuster-proof Senate. As we saw with Obamacare, Republicans couldn’t stop anything Mr. Obama wanted even when not a single Republican voted for it. If something Ms. Coleman wanted didn’t get passed during those two years, she can’t blame Republicans.

This is at least the ninth letter from Ms. Coleman defending Mr. Obama since March 28, 2008. Ms. Gardner is the same person who referred to then-President Bush as “a no account.”

“President Obama took office in the midst of the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression. The economy was bleeding jobs -- 800,000 in one month. Four million jobs lost before he took office. President Obama helped millions of families refinance their mortgages and avoid foreclosure.

“Mitt Romney was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. What does he know about hard times? His tax policies would actually increase taxes on middle-class families making less than $40,000 per year.”

[RWC] Ms. Coleman likely knows nothing about Messrs. Obama and Romney she didn’t get from Democrat and/or other lefty sources. Even if Mr. Romney were “born with a silver spoon in his mouth,” Mr. Obama hardly lived a disadvantaged life as you’ll read below. Have you noticed being well-off is only a problem when it’s a Republican? When was the last time you heard a lefty complain about the wealth of Democrats like the Clintons, Corzines, Emanuels, Kennedys, Kerrys, Lewises, Obamas, Pelosis, Reids, Rockefellers, Soroses, and so on?

Let’s change Ms. Coleman’s question to “What does [Mr. Obama] know about hard times?” Mr. Obama’s maternal grandmother (who raised him for several years) was an evil <g> bank vice president, he attended private grade and high schools, Occidental College (private), and Ivy League colleges Columbia University and Harvard Law School. Michelle Obama attended Princeton University and Harvard Law and she earned $316,962 and $273,618 in her final two years of full-time employment according to FactCheck.org. According to CNN, the Obamas’ net worth was between $2.8 and $11.8 million (including their $1.7 million house) as of January 2012. How many in Ms. Coleman’s “middle-class families” attended Mr. Obama’s $40,000-per-plate campaign-fundraising dinners hosted by George Clooney and Sarah Jessica Parker? Or the $35,800-per-plate dinner hosted by Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein? Or the $20,000-per-plate dinner hosted by Michael Jordan? There are more examples, but you get the idea. Don’t get me wrong; there’s nothing wrong with any of this and Mitt Romney’s campaign holds similar events. I point these things out only because Ms. Coleman wants us to believe Mr. Obama is something he isn’t.

Before I proceed, remember decreasing/increasing tax RATES is not the same as decreasing/increasing tax REVENUE. There is plenty of proof cutting tax RATES increases tax revenue because reduced rates result in greater economic output subject to taxation. For example, 50% of an 8” pie is only 32% of a 10” pie.

Ms. Coleman’s comment about “increase[d] taxes on middle-class families” likely resulted from Obama campaign misrepresentations of at least three studies. The first study is one done by the Tax Policy Center (TPC). The TPC, a left-leaning group (surprise!), “is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution” and, where they felt there were missing details, they filled in the perceived gaps with their own partisan assumptions. Even so, Donald Marron (TPC Director) said, “I don’t interpret this as evidence that Governor Romney wants to increase taxes on the middle class in order to cut taxes for the rich, as an Obama campaign ad claimed. Instead, I view it as showing that his plan can’t accomplish all his stated objectives.” My work experience is it’s not unusual for the first draft of a plan not to meet all the goals. That’s why the first version of a plan rarely gets implemented as is and there are multiple revisions before the final plan gets the go-ahead.

According to The Weekly Standard, an Obama campaign press release stated, “‘Even the studies that Romney has cited to claim his plan adds up still show he would need to raise middle-class taxes. In fact, Harvard economist Martin Feldstein and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen both concede that paying for Romney’s tax cuts would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000.’” Both Messrs. Rosen and Feldstein claim the Obama campaign’s assertions about their studies are false.

Responding to The Weekly Standard, Mr. Rosen wrote, “I can’t tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work.” Having read Mr. Rosen’s paper I can understand how the average Joe doing a quick read of the paper could come up with the Obama campaign’s claim, but the Obama campaign is not the average Joe. Here’s the thrust of the Rosen report. The combination of lower tax rates and fewer deductions for families making $100,000 or more increases economic activity, thereby increasing revenue over current tax law because there’s a bigger pie to tax. Since there is a tax revenue increase for this group, there’s no need to increase tax revenue from families making less than $100,000. I found no connection between Mr. Rosen and the Romney campaign.

Though by a different route, Mr. Feldstein comes to the same conclusion as Mr. Rosen. Mr. Feldstein is an adviser for the Romney campaign.

As far as Mr. Romney “refusing to explain how his tax plan, you know, works,” apparently it’s been explained enough for there to be analyses of it and for Mr. Obama to misrepresent at least one of those studies.

“Congressman Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney both support trillions in budget-busting tax cuts for millionaires paid for with tax hikes on the middle class and deep cuts in education and other investments we need to grow.”

[RWC] This is a bunch of hooey. As a reminder, being a “millionaire” as defined by Messrs. Obama and Biden begins at $200,000/year for an individual and $250,000/year for a couple.

In a previous letter, Ms. Coleman referred to her “low income.” If that’s still true, it’s unlikely Ms. Coleman pays any significant federal income taxes. Based on 2009 IRS data (the most recent available), the top 25% ($66,193 and higher) paid 87% of the total and the top 1% paid 37%. When people pay little or no federal income tax (and potentially get a “refundable tax credit” for payments never made), how can they accuse others of not paying their “fair share” and treat the people who pay the vast majority of the federal income tax revenue as if they were tax cheats and/or were getting off easy?

As for “deep cuts in education,” education is not a constitutional responsibility of the feds. The Obama administration Department of Education spending for fiscal year 2012 was $98 billion. While that’s a lot, eliminating it would have a negligible impact on school funding. As of 2009, Pennsylvania spent about $26 billion for education. That shows $98 billion spread across 50 states would be a drop in the bucket. To get any of that money, even a tiny bit, states must do what the feds demand. That’s how the feds get control over our schools while providing little funding which we pay for anyway.

“Thanks to President Obama for investing in clean energy while protecting the environment, helping to reduce dependency on foreign oil and investing in clean energy jobs and improving our air and water.”

[RWC] Oh my gosh! Does Ms. Coleman get all her news from lefties? You’ll note Ms. Coleman didn’t (can’t?) provide any examples of successes in any of these areas. As for Mr. Obama “investing,” he isn’t. Mr. Obama is spending taxpayer paychecks, not his own. It is not the government’s responsibility to use taxpayer dollars to fund its venture-capital business.

Here’s something else for which Ms. Coleman can thank Mr. Obama. The U.S. average price for unleaded, regular gasoline was $1.788/gallon for January 2009, the month of Mr. Obama’s inauguration. That price for September 2012 was $3.849/gallon, more than double what is was at Mr. Obama’s inauguration. As I’m writing, the price is $3.899/gallon at the four stations in Center Township. For diesel (on-highway), the price was $2.292/gallon for January 2009 and $4.120/gallon for September 2012, 1.8 times its January 2009 price. Diesel is the primary fuel used for transporting (train & truck) our food and its higher price accounts for a chunk of higher food prices.