Ian S. Thompson – 10/26/05

This page was last updated on October 29, 2005.

So where’s the compassion?; Ian S. Thompson; Beaver County Times; October 26, 2005.

As background, Mr. Thompson is/was a Penn State student whose fields of study are/were English and international politics. As I noted previously, I believe he has a future if he chooses to work for the Democrat party. If you’ve read Mr. Thompson’s letters since at least mid-2004, you know he’s a full-blown socialist who tends to resort to name-calling and unsupported talking points.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“For those still looking for any of the compassion in ‘compassionate conservatives’ I have a little advice: Wake up to reality people.”

[RWC] Though Mr. Thompson uses the term “compassionate conservatives,” “Rockefeller Republicans” would have been the correct term.

For someone allegedly studying English, Mr. Thompson doesn’t appear to know the meaning of compassion. The Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary definition of compassion is “sympathetic consciousness of others’ distress together with a desire to alleviate it.” As you will read below, Mr. Thompson appears to believe compassion occurs when the government confiscates part of your paycheck or retirement savings and gives it to someone else. What’s compassionate about being generous with someone else’s paycheck?

“Republicans in Congress are pushing for some of the most dramatic cuts ever in programs that are of vital importance to this nation’s poor and working-class while continuing to dole out tax breaks to those who need the least assistance. What a topsy-turvy set of priorities.”

[RWC] I hope Mr. Thompson’s inability to perform research is not a failing of his PSU curriculum. Mr. Thompson considers a 1% proposed cut a “most dramatic cut ever.” You find below that Mr. Thompson’s reluctance to cite figures is because the figures don’t support his allegations.

Mr. Thompson refers to the “working-class.” With an insignificant number of exceptions, don’t we all work for our livelihood?

Regarding the “tax breaks to those who need the least assistance” chestnut, here’s another example of Mr. Thompson covering up the facts. A Treasury Department fact sheet projected the share of 2005 taxes to be paid with and without the tax cuts. With the tax cuts, the percent of income taxes paid by “the rich” remains the same or increases depending on the specific income range. For the bottom 50%, their projected share of taxes drops from 4.1% without the cuts to 3.6% with the cuts. Further, a Tax Foundation analysis found the tax cuts completely erased the income tax liability for 7.8 million low- and middle-income families.”

“These proposed cuts are being driven by a dangerous right-wing ideology that has always been hostile to any government program that offers a helping hand to those in need.”

[RWC] I always get a kick out of talk about “dangerous right-wing ideology.” What is dangerous about freedom and personal responsibility, unless you’re a socialist? I wonder if Mr. Thompson learned this in his international politics classes.

Mr. Thompson conflates opposition to government income/wealth redistribution with a lack of desire to help the truly needy. Most conservatives believe in helping the needy. We just believe the help should come from voluntary contributions of time and money by private citizens instead of government. In case Mr. Thompson missed it, private citizens are constantly helping the needy via private organizations. I’d like to hear Mr. Thompson tell us why this is bad.

“While Congressional Republicans would have us believe that the programs they are proposing to slash do not affect most Americans, they could not be further from the truth. (What a shock, I know).”

[RWC] In addition to “compassion,” Mr. Thompson apparently doesn’t know the meaning of “most.” Mr. Thompson wants us to believe most Americans receive college grants and/or receive Medicaid benefits.

“Among the proposed cuts are billions of dollars in student loans, including work study assistance that millions of college students depend on. Without low-interest government loans and grants, my dream of graduating from college would have been almost impossible for me to achieve. These cuts in student loans will hit students especially hard here in Pennsylvania, which is now the most expensive state for young people to pursue a higher education in.”

[RWC] About 60 years ago, George Bernard Shaw observed, “A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.” This paragraph provides support for Shaw’s observation. Mr. Thompson readily he admitted he is or has been a “Paul.”

What are those proposed cuts? Mr. Thompson fails to tell us that spending in this area increased nearly $20 billion annually during President Bush’s first four budgets. Even with proposed cuts, annual spending in this area would remain nearly three times that of President Clinton’s last budget. I believe government at any level has no business subsidizing education.

You’ll note Mr. Thompson acknowledges the high price of education in Pennsylvania, but dares not try to tell us the reason. Why? He likely knows the high rate of subsidization and the stranglehold labor union management has on public education institutions are two primary reasons.

Perhaps I’m not the right person to point this out, but why would it be “almost impossible” for Mr. Thompson to obtain a college degree without a taxpayer handout? Couldn’t he work his way through college?

“The primary target of this disgraceful slash-and-burn campaign, however, is Medicaid. This program acts as a last-resort health-care option for millions of children, pregnant women, the disabled, the elderly and the working poor. There is no telling just how devastating an impact these cuts will have on those who depend on this program everyday of their lives.”

[RWC] Predictably, Mr. Thompson doesn’t even attempt to describe the impact of his alleged “cuts.” Want to know why? The proposed cuts would be approximately $11 billion over five years. This is only 1% of the total $1.1 trillion we’ll spend on Medicaid during that period. A 1% proposed cut is a “disgraceful slash-and-burn campaign?” Mr. Thompson also fails to note that Medicaid is a joint federal/state program. If Mr. Thompson doesn’t like the cuts, he can lobby his PA elected officials to increase PA taxes to increase Medicaid funding.

“I urge everyone to contact U.S. Rep. Melissa Hart and urge her to stand up for her constituents and oppose these disgraceful cuts. Any member of Congress who approves of this shameful plan should feel the pain it will surely cause millions at the polls in 2006.”

[RWC] Actually, no one on Mr. Thompson’s end of the economic, political, and social end of the spectrum needs to contact Ms. Hart. Based on her voting record, Ms. Hart has no problem voting for reckless spending. At best, Ms. Hart is the equivalent of a JFK-era Democrat, a.k.a. a Rockefeller Republican.