Edward Hum – 3/21/11

This page was last updated on March 22, 2011.

Where’s fiscally correct GOP?; Edward J. Hum; Beaver County Times; March 21, 2011.

Mr. Hum has written more than 59 letters since mid-2004, including a 10-month hiatus from September 2007 to July 2008. Most of Mr. Hum’s letters are no more than exercises in bashing President Bush and/or other Republicans. Mr. Hum’s letters are also flame-throwing exercises. I don’t know if Mr. Hum actually believes what he writes, or if he simply likes to stir things up to call attention to himself.

Mr. Hum frequently includes “fellow Republicans” or something similar in his letters and is one of a group of local Republican impersonators (The group also includes Messrs. William A. Alexander, Arthur Brown, William G. Horter, George Reese, and Oren M. Spiegler) who write claiming to be disgruntled Republicans. You have to give Mr. Hum “credit,” however, for going the extra mile to further his impersonation. As of September 2006, Mr. Hum was actually registered as a Republican despite the fact he’s no more a Republican than is Dennis Kucinich.

Given his body of work, for a while I wondered what Mr. Hum would use for subject matter now that Barack Obama is President. Mr. Hum wrote three letters in support of a government-run, taxpayer-funded healthcare monopoly (here, here, and here), then he reverted to his Bush-bashing habit, as in “Bush earns status as ‘most liberal.’” I guess some addictions are too tough to overcome. Mr. Hum’s last letter was entitled “Republicans like Reagan needed.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“My first vote was for Republican Thomas Dewey in 1948.”

[RWC] That would make Mr. Hum at least 84 years old since the minimum voting age at the time was 21. You’ll learn later why this is relevant. Here’s some trivia: Though superseded by the 26th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1971, Article VII, Section 1 of the PA Constitution still says a qualified elector must be a “citizen 21 years of age.”

As you read this letter, you’ll see it supports the notion Mr. Hum simply likes to stir things up to call attention to himself.

“Then, I voted for Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon in 1952. Eisenhower said we had to strengthen Social Security and, even though the highest tax rate was around 90 percent, we could not cut taxes because we had to balance the budget and build an interstate highway system.”

[RWC] What Mr. Hum failed to mention is we ran deficits for five of Mr. Eisenhower’s eight years in office for a net debt increase of $26.7 billion, or 10%. As for “strengthen[ing] Social Security,” how did that work out? Mr. Hum also didn’t mention our anemic economic growth during the Eisenhower administration. With the exceptions of 1955 and 1959 (both 7.2%), annual GDP growth was 2.5% or lower with two years actually negative [1954 (-0.6%) and 1958 (-0.9%)].

Don’t get me wrong; I generally like Ike. Ike was inaugurated a couple of weeks after my birth and my parents had me wear an “I like Ike” button during his reelection campaign. Mr. Eisenhower made some tough constitutional rights (aka “civil” rights) decisions. My point is simply to show what Mr. Hum omitted. Earlier this year Mr. Hum presented erroneous info about the Eisenhower administration.

“Around 1980, someone’s speech writer came with this: ‘Government is not the solution; government is the problem.’ For the next 30 years, it was cut taxes/smaller government.”

[RWC] In case you missed it, the point of the “someone’s speech writer” portion of the comment was to imply Ronald Reagan simply read what he was given. In fact, Mr. Reagan’s conservative writings go back to before he became California governor in 1966.

If you recall Mr. Hum’s last letter, you may have whiplash by now. In that letter Mr. Hum wrote, “We need Republicans like Ronald Reagan, who had the guts to raise taxes when necessary” while in this letter Mr. Hum says Mr. Reagan “cut taxes.” Which is it? By Mr. Reagan’s last budget (FY 1989), tax revenue had increased from $599.3 billion in FY 1981 to $991.1 billion using constant (FY 2005) dollars. That’s a tax revenue increase of $391.9 billion, or 65.4%. Some went up and others went down, but the key was a net cut in tax RATES.

“After George W. Bush cut taxes and started two wars, a Medicare drug program, Wall Street bailout and stimulus money to avoid another depression, the national debt exploded.”

[RWC] Mr. Bush didn’t “cut taxes,” he cut tax RATES. The primary reasons were the recession that started toward the end of the Clinton administration, 9/11 and its aftereffects, and the insecurity caused by the uncovering of accounting scandals (Enron, etc.) that flourished during the Clinton administration. Even JFK recognized the need for rate cuts. Eventually we had record tax revenue (from the tax RATE cuts) and “discretionary” spending increased at a slower rate than during the Clinton administration. Before the current recession began to kick in, tax revenue peaked at $2.6 trillion in 2007, an increase of $577 billion (29%) since 2001. By the end of fiscal year 2007 (the last before the recession), the deficit was down to $161 billion. Once again, tax revenue wasn’t the problem, spending was.

You have to give Mr. Hum credit for chutzpah. As I noted above, Mr. Hum wrote three letters in support of a government-run, taxpayer-funded healthcare monopoly and does so again in this letter, yet bashes Mr. Bush for “a Medicare drug program.” I opposed Medicare Part D and still do. That said, this program has actually come in significantly under estimates, from $694 million over 10 years to about $395 million over 10 years

The idea Mr. Bush “started two wars” is a popular theme of lefties. I thought al-Qaida started the war in Afghanistan with their 9/11 attacks, but maybe I’m mistaken. Does this mean FDR really did start our war with Japan in WWII?

How are “a Medicare drug program, Wall Street bailout and stimulus money” the “smaller government” Mr. Hum mentioned above?

“The only sensible Republican president in 30 years was George H.W. Bush, who called it voodoo economics.”

[RWC] Mr. Bush so opposed “voodoo economics” he signed on as Mr. Reagan’s VP. By the way, when the “only sensible Republican president in 30 years … George H.W. Bush” increased tax rates after promising “Read my lips; no new taxes,” how did that work out for him?

Here’s more whiplash. A month ago Mr. Hum wrote “We need Republicans like Ronald Reagan,” but now the “only sensible Republican president in 30 years was George H.W. Bush?” What happened since that previous letter to change Mr. Hum’s mind?

“Now, they want to save money by cutting education, NPR, Planned Parenthood and any low-income subsidy. If they cut oil-industry subsidies and eliminated Bush’s tax cuts, they would save hundreds of billions.”

[RWC] As for “cutting education,” most of us don’t seem to notice that just about every major technology we use today was developed by those of us educated long before the federal Department of Education (ED) appeared in 1979. Do the space program, computers, cell phones, the Internet, et cetera ring a bell? We didn’t need the ED then; we don’t need it now. Let’s also remember there’s no constitutional support for the ED; it’s extra-constitutional at best.

As for NPR, who in their right mind believes ANY government should be involved in providing its citizens with commentary, news, entertainment, et cetera? It’s a conflict of interest and one reason why the First Amendment says in part “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

Though the government has no business being in the healthcare business as Planned Parenthood claims to be, the real problem many people have with PP is taxpayer funding of abortions. Since dollars are fungible, all PP needs to do is shift money around from their various funding sources. As a result, there’s no way PP can credibly claim tax dollars aren’t used to fund abortions unless they stop performing abortions or stop receiving tax dollars.

As I’ve written since at least 2005, there’s no question the oil and gas industry needs no subsidies, tax breaks, et cetera. Though then-President George W. Bush frequently said he opposed the incentives, in the end he signed the energy bill. I believe he should have vetoed the bill until the subsidies were removed.

As for increasing tax rates as Mr. Hum proposes, even his fellow lefties knew it was a bad idea, especially during a down economy with 9%+ unemployment. Otherwise, why didn’t Democrats do it when they had majorities in both houses and a Democrat in the White House for two years? If Mr. Hum feels it’s his duty to pay more taxes, there’s nothing stopping him from doing so.

“To save real money, they could adopt universal health care. Of course, that eliminates the for-profit health-insurance industry. Goodbye campaign contributions.”

[RWC] As noted above, Mr. Hum has been down the government-run, taxpayer-funded healthcare monopoly road at least three times before. At the risk of entering “insensitive” territory, here’s why Mr. Hum’s age is relevant. In none of his letters did Mr. Hum mention implementing a government-run, taxpayer-funded healthcare monopoly would likely have little impact on him, either financial or medical. That’s because for the average U.S. male of 85, the CDC reports a life expectancy of about 5.7 years. Further, keep in mind Obamacare’s real kick-in isn’t to happen until 2014. In fairness, I don’t know Mr. Hum and the personal impact (good or bad, large or small) of a government-run, taxpayer-funded healthcare monopoly may have no effect on his position. As I’ve noted over the years, I pay for all my medical expenses (insurance premiums, copays, etc.) out of my own pocket.

“I’m afraid there is so much money in politics now that we’ll never get another Eisenhower, fiscally responsible Republican Party.”

[RWC] Who’s next on Mr. Hum’s tour of deceased or long-retired Republicans he wants us to believe he liked? You may recall two recent Hum letters were entitled “Republicans like Reagan needed” and “We need more John Wayne Republicans.” I doubt Mr. Hum would go for Messrs. Nixon and Ford, but what about President Calvin Coolidge? Mr. Hum would have been at most three or four years old at the time, though.

Here’s why Mr. Coolidge would be a good example, but one Mr. Hum would likely never use. Have you heard of the depression/recession of 1920-1921 [the last year of the Woodrow Wilson (a Progressive Democrat) administration]? Probably not, though most of us learned about the Roaring ‘20s. So how did we get from a depression/recession to the Roaring ‘20s? Presidents Warren G. Harding (R) and Calvin Coolidge (R) must have jacked up spending, taxes, and debt, right? Not even close. Using 1920 (the first year after World War I) as a base, the Harding/Coolidge administrations reduced spending 55% by 1927, reduced taxes 45% by 1925, and ran eight straight surpluses. According to the BLS, unemployment for 1923-1929 averaged 3.3%. Now you know why lefties like to brush over the 1920s; it provides proof Hoover/FDR/Obama “stimulus” programs don’t work but conservative principles do.