Between January 1, 2008 and today, state rep. Jennifer Mann has been mentioned in seventy-five stories by The Morning Call. Over that same time frame, her opponent in the race for the state house, Mike Welsh, has been featured just once. As a member of the state house, Jennifer Mann would naturally be a part of some important stories. But this also gives her an unfair advantage.Recently, Welsh debated Mann at Tempo Public Square, which you can see yourself right here. Mann clearly took Welsh too lightly. When he began to score points by stressing the need more police in Allentown, instead of a damn hockey rink, she actually started interrupting the moderators, refusing to abide by the rules.
In a fair fight, she loses. But that won't happen, and Welsh knows it. That's why you gotta' love his decision to tell The Morning Call gods, very politely, to stick it. They recently descended from the mountain to glance in his direction. Here's his amazing response.
Mr. Glenn Kranzley
Editor of the Opinion Pages
The Morning Call
101 N Sixth St
Allentown, Pa. 18105
Dear Mr. Kranzley,
Thank you for your invitation to meet with members of the Morning Call Editorial Board to discuss my candidacy as well as your possible recommendation in this election. Unfortunately, I must decline your invitation. I am declining because the lack of coverage of my campaign over the last seven months leads me to believe the endorsement of my opponent is a foregone conclusion.
During my campaign I have focused on critical issues that are facing our community, including the growing crime and gang problem which I believe is the root of Allentown's troubles. Despite issuing numerous press releases and inviting the Morning Call to press conferences where I have outlined solutions to these problems, there has not been one line written about my campaign in your newspaper. For example:
• You chose not to cover my opening press conference in April of this year.
• Despite the presence of a Morning Call reporter at my August press conference nothing appeared in your newspaper. Follow up phone calls pertaining to this issue to Ardith Hilliard and Peter Leffler proved fruitless, as I was told the omission of the press conference was a “glitch in the system”. I was asked to re-submit this information again. I then personally hand delivered this information – again I was ignored.
• My request for an article on the Editorial page pertaining to HB 1189 (Commonwealth Officers Act) aimed at increasing the number of police officers in Allentown and surrounding Lehigh Valley communities was rejected.
• My latest news release in September was also ignored.
I have enclosed copies of each of these communications for your perusal.
There are only two conclusions I can reach from this experience: either the Morning Call has made a conscious decision to ignore my campaign, or your newspaper has pre-determined who they will endorse and support. Since I recently read a glowing article about my opponent's mis-directed efforts to bring a hockey arena to Allentown, I think your bias has been made perfectly clear.
I sincerely hope that I am proven wrong and that the Morning Call will begin providing fair coverage of my campaign. Until that happens, I will continue to take my campaign to the residents of Allentown. It is ultimately their endorsement that matters most in this campaign.
Sincerely,
Mike Welsh
If Mr. Welsh had any sense, he would realize that the Morning Call doesn't cover ANY opening press conferences and barely gives any coverage to challengers or open seat candidates. Say what you want about the Morning Call because of it, I certainly think that they fail to cover local politics adequately. But by attempting to make a political issue of this, I think Mr. Welsh comes off looking small and petty. He reminds me of a four-year old who gets in trouble for something and screams, "But it's not faaaaaaaaaaaaair."
ReplyDeleteEndorsing Mann may or may not have been a foregone conclusion. But Mr. Welsh's petulence certainly confirmed that it will be.
We need big thinkers in the state house. Not small minds.
Love this guy. Jen Mann is a mess and the MC loves to abet a mess.
ReplyDeleteI commend Mike for this action, the Morning Call has facilitated the decline of Allentown through its partisan support of Allentown's Democrat elected officials for too long now. The paper is clearly a big part of the problem in Allentown.
ReplyDeleteScott Armstrong
"If Mr. Welsh had any sense, he would realize that the Morning Call doesn't cover ANY opening press conferences and barely gives any coverage to challengers or open seat candidates."
ReplyDeleteThat's the point. Although the reality is that incumbents tend to be the persons involved in newsworthy stories, the MSM goes out of its way to ignore challengers, doing all of us a disservice. I commend Mr. Welsh for refusing to play their game.
good for him! the MC no longer has a monopoly on new coverage, particularly political campaigns.
ReplyDeleteWhitecaste,
ReplyDeleteLearn what the job of the fourth estate is before you demean the honest efforts of a new face in the political arena. IGNORING people is NOT their job. BI PARTISAN REPORTING is NOT their job. The morning call has been a joke and a rag for a long enough time that it is refreshing to see someone challenge them.
The downfall of a the news and the media should be a political issue. The way the news is reported in Allentown would make even George Orwell shudder.
Challengers to the political process are just as important, if not more, than the incumbents running over and over again. Without their presence, keeping politicians honest would be impossible and in Mike Welsh's case brings issues that need to be addressed that can only help Allentown even if he does not win. The willingness to challenge the MSM is a big thinking decision. To deride him makes your thought process small minded.
Good for Welsh for giving them the big FU. Who cares what the MC thinks/endorses anyway? BTW, do they still have enuff newsroom employees or otherwise to even make a quorum for an editorial board?
ReplyDeleteBob, Jr,
ReplyDeleteGood question. There's only one person writing editorials, so far as I Know.
No candidate should ever refuse an opportunity to speak to voters through media outlets. Like it or not, the Mcall is the media outlet that dominates his district. Barack Obama sat down with Bill O'Reily, a man that has called him a terrorist and socialist. Why? B/c he knows that O'Reily, as vile as he is, is respected to a large number of voters. At the end of the day, that's who matters: the voters.
ReplyDeleteWelsh, whether he realizes it or not, just said that his campaign matters more than the voters. That is a terrible message to send (whether he means to or not). I know that my vote is now decided and my guess is that the guy just lost his election. Shame too, b/c he could have been compelling enough to give Mann a competition. Then again, maybe its these campaign skills that ensure the R's won't be competitive in Allentown elections for a long time. Pitty: we need some good competition.
Whitecastle,
ReplyDeleteThe Morning Call did in fact gave democratic challenger Sam Bennett coverage of her campaign launch. The entire article is no longer online for free, but the topix.com link to it can be found here.
Anon 9:26,
I don't see Mr. Welsh's stand against the Morning Call as a slight to voters at all. Rather, I see a candidate making a stand on principles, rather than grabbing at some small scrap of media attention that finally gets thrown his way in the last 3 weeks of his campaign. It's refreshing, actually. The man is putting his faith in his platform and the intelligence of the constituency, then letting the chips fall where they may.
Perhaps he has been doing some heavy face-to-face canvasing in the district and may just surprise everyone on election day.
An anonymous and false personal attack, posted by a troll, has been deleted.
ReplyDeletePete, Actually, the MC announced Bennett's candidacy each of the four times she said she was running.
ReplyDelete"Perhaps he has been doing some heavy face-to-face canvasing in the district and may just surprise everyone on election day."
ReplyDeleteIt's not one or the other... it's both. Candidates that choose to engage voters exclusively on their terms are sending the message that their campaign matters more than how the voter wants to hear from the candidate. A good number of voters will want to learn about the candidate via newspaper. To stand on principle is to ignore the principle that matters most: elections are about voters. If the principle of "cover me more" is more important than voters, then Welsh has sealed his fate and frankly I'll never vote for him.
Anybody who moans about media bias during an election is wasting precious time NOT talking to voters.
BTW, I'm a super voter in Allentown. He hasn't knocked on my door, sent me literature or called me. Neither has Mann, but she's willing to talk to the paper.
Anon 10:16,
ReplyDeleteYour argument is that no candidate should waste an opportunity to speak to the press. While I think you have a point, Welsh did the right thing. A persistent problem, at least in this area, is that the press heads for the hills at election time. Obviously, they have a legitimate concern that someone is trying to spin them, but some compelling stories are overlooked as a result.
One of them is Welsh. While Mann claims that hockey is the solution to all of A-town's woes, Welsh thinks the city is in serious trouble and needs 300 cops on the force. Who's going to pay for that? Will it really solve the problem? Why is it that people stand with cell phones or walkie talkies outside every barber shop?
This is very compelling stuff, and the paper has swept it under the rug, just as it swept LANTA routing changes under the rug. That only changed when Channel 69 began to cover the story.
Welsh makes an excellent point with the paper, one that reminds them of their own responsibilities as guardians of our democracy. That letter is a better service to democracy than a meeting with the editorial board.
Sure, it costs him the election. But whether the MC does one story or not, he's losing anyway. We all know that. So why not run a campaign that might actually improve our democratic process?
I guess what you're saying is that this won't help him get elected. He understands that. Some things are more important.
ReplyDelete"So why not run a campaign that might actually improve our democratic process?"
ReplyDeleteThat comment is only accurate if we pretend that newspapers aren't part of the democratic process. Do media outlets cover elections as well as we would like them to? No. Instead we get 24/7 horse race crap and constant rehash of talking points.
You can't change the democratic process by removing yourself from it. At the end of the day Welsh better feel really good about himself b/c disengaging from media and the democratic process does not change the process. If anything, the process will continue as it has to date with incumbents continuing to milk their relationships with the papers and other outlets. In effect, it gives the newspaper license to write off the opposition.
The worst protest is the one that goes unheard.
I think the Mcall gave an indicator in how it will talk to candidates. yesterday they did a feature on Freeman and Shegda. The issue: property taxes, something that Shegda is constantly focusing on. If Welsh went into his face to face with the board and kept putting attention on crime in the city, I would bet a reasonable sum of money on the article's headline talking about how the state can do more to help communities fight crime.
If Welsh is running his campaign under the notion that he is going to lose, then he should stop wasting voters' time and just drop out. If he wants to make a change, then he better act like he does. The actions aren't matching his rhetoric.
Oh, and my guess is that the Mcall will run an article that says something to the effect of "Jennfier Mann met with us. here is what she said. Mike Welsh declind to meet with us."
ReplyDeleteThey will probably endorse Jennfier Mann and use Welsh's decision not to meet with them as an excuse, perhaps going so far as to say if he can't meet with the press now, what makes anybody think he will support open and transparent gov't as a candidate. They may publish a letter from Welsh in their LTE section, shortened for space considerations and it will come off as if he is petty.
He may feel like he has done the right thing, but democracy is most definitely not served in the scenerio I just played out.
Let me ask you this - how the hell do you think Shegda will do for playing along? He will be crushed, although in his case it's in his interest not to have the press look at him too closely.
ReplyDeleteSure, Welsh could get the one-story recap followed by an editorial condemnation. His point is that we deserve better, and we do.
Sure Ron will get crushed. No disputing that. But he is serving the democratic process by raising the issue (property taxes) that is most important to him. If that isn't a public service, then I don't know what is.
ReplyDeleteWelsh can raise the issue that appears to be most important to him (crime). Instead, nothing will be raised. He doesn't serve the public by not talking to the paper.
His protest will go unheard. I also think he is being really short in his thinking here. Sure he loses to Jennifer Mann, but if he is raising crime as an issue, he opens the door for the opportunity to serve Allentown (city council perhaps) and continue to push against crime. Instead, the voter's will be introduced to him as a candidate who doesn't want to meet with the paper and the paper won't forget that it was told to stuff it.
And what will we get? More of the same. We certainly do deserve better. Welsh's mentality and approach to running for office won't get it done.
I completely disagree with you, but also really appreciate your argument. It is intelligent and well-stated. Thank you.
ReplyDeletereasonable people can disagree.
ReplyDeleteGreetings:
ReplyDeleteAn old friend (a dedicated elected Republican and PR expert) once said to me, "you don't own the newspaper -- or TV station -- so you cannot expect to get what you want."
I have always worked with that statement in mind. There are those who argue the paper has a Republican slant. Others describe a Democratic slant. I simply say that the paper is run by people who are seeking a profit, none of which goes to most of us.
I would like to see Mr. Welsh meet with the paper. He would have his chance in person to critize their approach. Mike seems to be a good person with good intentions. He is making an effort in the community. No matter how much he detests not getting coverage earlier, he should perhaps swallow his pride and exploit the opportunity.
Principle is important. He can be principled by accepting the invitation and confronting their lack of respect for his candidacy.
Best regards,
Michael Donovan
ps...full disclosure. As some readers know, I do get "press coverage," and I believe a reporter was at my campaign announcement. I do not remember getting much if any of a story, although I did receive press later in the campaign.
Relations with the media are difficult to manage. Ask any marketing manager. I have learned that you have to go with the flow and acknowledge that most people have no real control over content.
If one starts from that point of view, then any coverage (or any invitation) becomes important and should not be ignored.
It's always a new day.
michael..."do-gooding" being "principled", "exploiting the opportunity" and meeting with them to personally present one's case are all ineffective strategies which do noting but perpetuate a sorry state of newspaper/campaign history.
ReplyDeletei am very proud of mr. welsh for standing up to them on a matter of principle.
perhaps the MC ought to practice some "INCLUSION" of their own.
Gutsiest political move I've ever seen.
ReplyDeleteWelsh is a Maverick.
Michael Donovan:
ReplyDeleteTry running as a Republican in Allentown and then you can give lectures on working with the press.
Tom Burke was beat by Ds like you who were not qualified to carry his jock!
Give me a break, you blow hard!!
Dear Anony 4:44 and 1:50:
ReplyDeleteI love your friendliness, especially when you cannot identify yourself.
I'll take my way of running my life. You can use yours in any way you would like. They are merely different.
Mr. Burke is a fine man, and certainly very talented. I respect him very much. If you feel that I cannot match his talents, so be it. I suspect your opinion is certainly based on ideology, which is sad.
So thank you for your kind remarks. I just saw Mr. Welsh a little while ago, and though he stood by his decision, which I can appreciate, he noted that he understood my perspective and was glad to read it. We had a good conversation. I believe he will attest to that.
Oh...does that mean we were civil? Gosh. Should he be shot for talking to a Democratic party member? Or should I for being seen with him?
Have a great day.
Best regards,
Michael Donovan
Anin 4:44, I happen to agree with your argument, but will ask that you not call people names. I happen to think Michael Donovan is a very good and accessible city council member. He's one of the few elected officials who actually blogs, and tries to aim at improving A-town. I disagree w/ Michael often, but never doubt his good intentions.
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteOnly those deeply rooted in the far left forest would fail to see/admit the obvious Democrat bias of the Morning Call. The truth of the bias is plain to see seven days a week, it starts on the front page and continues through on each page.
Please spare us the tired every things relative argument/diversion of some see it this way and others see it that way. Non objective writing and editorializing are rule not the exception in much of modern journalism. We have the right to call it for what it is, advocacy rather than reporting.
It would be more honest to label every article as opinion, and call the editorials Democrat opinion.
What the paper has failed to do in covering the Republican side of an important state rep. race is just the latest example of the “Call’s” journalistic malpractice.
Scott Armstrong
Scott,
ReplyDeleteI disagree that there is a political bias at the MC. I'd call it an incumbent bias. True, they've given Mike Welsh the shaft, but not bc of his politics. He's the challenger. Jenn Mann, like it or not, is a popular incumbent.
Let me tell you about another state rep race. Joe Brennan, a very good Democrat with a liberal voting record, is running for re-election. Part of his district is in Allentown. Amazingly, he's been challenged. Now who would do such a thing? Another liberal.
Joe Brennan is being challenged by Green Party member Guy Gray. There has been no story at all about this race, although it sounds like a story to me. Why would a liberal challenge another liberal? There's no story bc the paper tends to favor incumbents.
I have noticed that all papers tend to slant a bit towards an incumbent. What is happening to Mike is not political bias, but incumbent bias.
It's funny. Boscola's COS, Bernie Kieklak, regularly called the MC a Republican paper. He claimed the paper would not run stories about PSA money going to Rs like Harhart and Reichley.
Bernie,
ReplyDeleteYou have created an interesting bias theory for the paper, one that I unfortunately cannot agree with. While it is true they do seem to prefer local incumbents, it is also true that a Democrat bias permeates all of the Associated Press and “Call” reporting on the front page and A section and most of their reporting in both sections A and B
The opinion page clearly favors the Democrats as well, and long rambling rants (letters) by Democrats are so routine and unoriginal they need no longer be read because they contain absolutely nothing new. When they did publish local opinion pieces, they edited the columns by Republicans down in size and severely restricted and distorted content. They even provided local Democrats with insights on the essays prior to publication so they could be refuted immediately with a Democrat response. They then would refuse any effort by the Republican to respond to the response. It was inherently unfair. One may try to deny any of this, but it is true.
As I have written before, many Republicans/conservatives are tired of buying a paper, or listening to a news broadcast that insults their intelligence and point of view. Our dissatisfaction is evidenced by the declining revenues of all of the offending institutions.
Scott Armstrong
Dear Scott:
ReplyDeleteI really do not see how you can call me a far left critter.
You have had a few conversations with me. You assume that because I might vote a certain way, I am a far left liberal. Indeed, there really haven't been any votes to which I have been subjected that would even begin to label me as left wing. I have voted in a way with which you and others disagree. That does not make me far left.
I am pragmatic. I have made people lots of money in my past. I understand savings, investment, rate of return. I believe in productivity and invention. The only difference is that I do not believe that markets have all the solutions. I believe, quite strongly, that there is a role for government in society, and that role extends beyond what you view is appropriate.
I also believe, unlike you, that managing a city includes all parties and not just a priviledged class. This is where you and I probably part ways because my definition of constitutents is probably broader than yours.
In my heart, I have an ideology to which I have feelings. However, I have learned that in problem-solving those feelings play only a partial role. Your opinions and those of others are important, too. I take those thoughts into my assessment.
Yes, I ultimately have to make a choices, but I suspect that I consider more perspectives than you do. Doing that means that I have influence over legislation before it comes to council. My job is to merge as best I can the role of a statesman with the task of being an opinion poll tracker. This dilemma is an age old problem for government officials. Do they just follow the polls? Do they follow their inner compass?
I still believe that Mr. Welsh would have been better off having the interview. Nevertheless, he has his good reasons that satisfy his moral compass. I can respect that.
Finally, I think that the reason certain people do not like my approach to government is that I am an egghead. I relish the ideas that people have and consider ideas important in a rational and objective manner.
I am a first generation college graduate. There was not a book in my house as I grew up. I am proud that I grew up able to discuss and listen to multiple viewpoints.
You can complain about leftists as much as you want. But do not attempt to label me. You might be surprised.
Best regards,
Michael
"I also believe, unlike you, that managing a city includes all parties and not just a priviledged class. This is where you and I probably part ways because my definition of constitutents is probably broader than yours."
ReplyDeleteMike, This comment reflects a pure ignorance on your part. Ignorance combined with assumed knowledge is a big part of your problem.
Scott Armstrong
I am an Independent Candidate for the 29th Commonwealth Senate seat, and am on the ballot. To get there I had to file a federal lawsuit challenging Pennsylvania's ballot access laws. I have been shut out of legislative forums. Neither of my opponents (it is one of the few 3-way races in Pa. this election cycle) is willing to debate. If you read the Morning Call you have never read a word about any of this, even though the MC is one of the principle media outlets for this seat, which is in 6 counties.S BAYLOR
ReplyDeleteMichael Donovan:
ReplyDeleteYou said - You can complain about leftists as much as you want. But do not attempt to label me. You might be surprised.
OK. Let's see. Here is the test:
1. For whom did you vote in the last 4 presidential elections?
2. What is you position on abortion?
3. What is you position on gay marriage?
4. Do you support vouchers for school choice?
5. Do you believe that the 10% of the people who pay 50% of the taxes are over taxed?
6. Do you believe that the constitution is a "living" document?
7. What did the founding fathers mean by a separation of church and state?
8. What is your view of health care and the responsibility of the Federal government?
9. Should we drill for oil in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)?
10. For whom will you vote on November 4th?
Michael Donovan:
ReplyDeleteYou said - Mr. Burke is a fine man, and certainly very talented. I respect him very much. If you feel that I cannot match his talents, so be it. I suspect your opinion is certainly based on ideology, which is sad.
You suspect certainly wrong. You failed to see my point, even though you made it in your response. It is true that you can not match his talent. Very few of us can. But he lost and you won. Why? Could it be because he is an R and your are a D? Is that fair in your view? How would you feel if it were the other way around? Would you still be lecturing us on press relations? I wonder.
If I over reacted I am sorry. It is just that I have watch this bias occur for so long, and I am very tired of it. A good person like Mike Welsh should have a fair shot. If you agree, you can call the M Call and tell them so. Will you?
Anon,
ReplyDeleteWhile Mike refuses to answer any of your questions he will impugn all Republicans with his comment that he is concerned with “all parties and not just a priviledged class”.
His suggestion that Republicans don’t care for the concerns of the poor betray the obvious, he is a self righteous liberal Democrat that cannot comprehend that the only difference between the two parties is a different political philosophy towards the same end.
This is a clear indication of a lack of intellectual depth and understanding on his part. Rather sad.
Tom Burke was a great city council person, city government is the lesser without him.
Scott Armstrong
Anon 4:48, We're straying a bit off topic, but I like these questions - what makes spmeone a conservative? I think an even more important question is what makes someone a dem or an R? Should political party even be a relevant consideration in a race for local office?
ReplyDeleteI consider myself a liberal, practically a socialist. let me try to answer your questions, and I apologize for straying.
1. For whom did you vote in the last 4 presidential elections?
Kerry, Nader, Nader, Perot.
2. What is you position on abortion?
I don't think I have a say in this unbiquely dfemale topic, but support the right to choose.
3. What is you position on gay marriage?
I love it. Maybe I'll get lucky.
4. Do you support vouchers for school choice?
Yes. I also support charter schools, NCLB (with modificatins), and believe we can't do enough for our teachers.
5. Do you believe that the 10% of the people who pay 50% of the taxes are over taxed?
Since most of these bastards can afford to buy whatever kind of government they want, i don't think they're overtaxed at all.
6. Do you believe that the constitution is a "living" document?
Absolutely. Any other interpretation reveals a true ignorance of our legal system and the common law, which constantly changes as circumstances warrrant.
7. What did the founding fathers mean by a separation of church and state?
Jefferson was a founding father, and answered that question in a letter to Danbury Baptists. There must always be a wall of separation between church and state. If you want a theocracy, move to Iran.
8. What is your view of health care and the responsibility of the Federal government?
I believe in universal health care.
9. Should we drill for oil in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)?
The jury's out. I need convincing it can be done in a way that is environmentally friendly. Lots of convincing.
10. For whom will you vote on November 4th?
I'm leaning Obama.
Now, does this mean I get blindfolded and shot? I don't think my answers mean anything. I like what others have to say on these issues and will often support people with whom I disagree on a number of issues.
I think this will be a greeat discussion, but it's better if it occurs after the election. Everybody is getting antsy.
ReplyDelete“You can complain about leftists as much as you want. But do not attempt to label me. You might be surprised.” M.D.
ReplyDeleteDoth thou protest too much? One might have cause to wonder with the Mann and Obama yard sign in your not so “left” front yard.
Scott Armstrong
For the record Bernie, what you think about these issues is not the issue here, you are not running around pretending to be something you are not and/or positioning yourself as above it all.
ReplyDeleteScott Armstrong
Greetings:
ReplyDeleteThis is so interesting, and so friendly.
To the person who notes that perhaps I cannot match Mr. Burke's talent. You can always have your opinion. I respect Mr. Burke very much.
To Scott, I consider neither you nor I ignorant. We have our positions, that is all. We simply look at the world differently and have interpretations of each other.
To the test giver, I do not apologize for who I am, which is pragmatic (an American invention, by the way). Your test to determine who is liberal or conservative does not demonstrate much of an understanding of the terms or their history. The questions merely present a take on personal opinion at this stage of our history.
1. For whom did you vote in the last 4 presidential elections?
Democratic each time.
2. What is you position on abortion?
It is a woman's choice and no one else's.
3. What is your position on gay marriage?
People who love each other and wish to form a union should have that right. If they wish to have it recognized as a marriage, that right is theirs, too, especially if their religion is accepting of such a decision.
4. Do you support vouchers for school choice?
No, it would never work for the vast majority of American families. It is a logistical nightmare.
5. Do you believe that the 10% of the people who pay 50% of the taxes are over taxed?
No, because they earn about 50% of all income. Seems to be acorrelation, wouldn't you agree? Check out the facts, please.
6. Do you believe that the constitution is a "living" document?
No one ever gets it totally right, nor does the world stay fixed in place. Society has to make judgments within a framework of reason. Thus, adjustments might be needed.
7. What did the founding fathers mean by a separation of church and state?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I think that says enough. Just as I accept the second amendment as cast in stone, this one is fixed, too.
8. What is your view of health care and the responsibility of the Federal government?
A civilized society has a duty and responsibility to provide health care for all its people.
9. Should we drill for oil in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)?
No. I don't think the wolves would like it.
10. For whom will you vote on November 4th?
Mr. Obama.
Enjoy. Lovely chatting with each of you.
Best regards,
Michael Donovan
Mike,
ReplyDeleteThis "lovely chat" has been worthy in that it has provided real transparency to your thinking.
Scott Armstrong
Hello Scott:
ReplyDeleteIs not transparency what it is all about. And just because someone thinks a certain way, does not mean that they do not consider and respect different types of thinking.
The world is not a yes/no world. I may think a particular way, but I'm not inflexible. My thinking should not rule the world, nor should yours. We are just part of a system that requires transparency and dialogue to work out differences.
If you wish to paint me as a villain, that is your perogative. My tendency is not to do that for people who may not think like I do.
I'll stand by that belief.
Best regards,
Michael
Mike,
ReplyDeleteYour circling communications fail to make any points cogent to the topic. None the less a greater purpose is being served by the process.
Scott Armstrong
Michael Donovan wrote:
ReplyDelete"5. Do you believe that the 10% of the people who pay 50% of the taxes are over taxed?
No, because they earn about 50% of all income. Seems to be acorrelation, wouldn't you agree? Check out the facts, please."
Michael, when I check out the latest numbers listed by the Congressional Budget office I find that the top 20% (they break it down by quintiles) earned 53.5% of total income and they paid 85.3% of all federal income taxes. Where did you get the information that shows a one to one correlation?
Dean Browning
Scott:
ReplyDeleteI'll just tune out on your comment. I think my comments are cogent. You do not think so. Oh well.
Dean, hello.
My statistics come from an IRS document found for 2006 at
http://www.irs.treas.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html
2006 under "tax generated."
Based on my calculations:
15% of the tax returns were for $100,000 or more of income. Those returns showed 60% of modified taxable income (as defined by IRS). That income generated 71% of tax. Pretty close to 1:1, I would say, but not exact, I would also admit.
Interestingly, 1% of the returns generated 26% of the income and that paid 36% of the taxes. Again, pretty close to 1:1.
Now we could quibble over whether the premium that is paid is too much. But somehow, I think that when 15% of the tax reporting population has 60% of the taxable income, perhaps there is an issue here?
I will always be willing to stand corrected, but that is how I answered the question.
Best regards,
Michael
Michael:
ReplyDeleteMy source was the CBO at:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml
I responded to you because you were pretty adamant in one of your earlier emails we check out facts. The fact you stated was that the Top 10% earn 50% of the income and pay 50% of the taxes which led you to comment on the correlation. Using the link above, the CBO's data is different in that the top 10% earned 40.9% of the income yet paid 72.7% of income taxes (using 2005). That doesn't seem to me to be quite the 1:1 correlation you cited. In your latest reply you went further and stated that the IRS data showed the Top 1% had 26% of the income and paid 36% of the taxes and segued from there to say that was "pretty close to 1:1" Actually, it's not. It is more like 1.4 to 1 which is a big difference.
If you don't think there is a difference then lets try this. Why don't you give me $3,600 tomorrow and I'll give you $2,600 on Monday to pay you back? After all, it's "pretty close to 1:1" which would make it an even exchange, right? :-)
As to your final point, I do agree that there is an issue with 15% of the tax reporting population having 60% of the taxable income. However, rather than reducing the income of the top 15% I think our time and efforts would be better spent working on ways to increase the income of the bottom 15%.
Let me know if you like my 1:1 loan idea and we can meet for breakfast tomorrow to do the exchange.
Typical MC actions. There is a reason why they are losing advertisers (and subscribers and readers) and have notified the AP that they are dropping the srervice in two years.
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteAgain, thanks.
Scott Armstrong
Dean,
ReplyDeleteWait a minute. I answered the question and I said that "about" 50% of the income is earned by 10% of the population, which is accurate. I said that there seems to a correlation between income and tax, which is accurate. In checking various facts on the web, I found many sources that at least confirmed the general correlation. The one that I found that would seem the best source was the IRS. That ratio is 1.18:1. I do think that the top 1% should pay.
I did check out the facts and clearly we used two different sources.
The difference here is whether our society should have a progressive tax structure. I believe it should have a progressive tax structure. I'm sure we'll part ways with that.
Just because we used two different sources does not make either one of us perfectly right or perfectly wrong. The original question was misleading because it did not show that most of the nation's income is earned by a small percentage of the households.
And I will suggest that there are a variety of policies (formal and informal) that are in place that reduce the chances for the bottom 85% to even begin to achieve higher income.
Again, that is probably where we differ, but that makes neither one of us bad people, just one with different opinions.
Michael
"I really do not see how you can call me a far left critter." M.D.
ReplyDelete"You can complain about leftists as much as you want. But do not attempt to label me. You might be surprised." M.D.
"1. For whom did you vote in the last 4 presidential elections?
Democratic each time.
2. What is you position on abortion?
It is a woman's choice and no one else's.
3. What is your position on gay marriage?
People who love each other and wish to form a union should have that right. If they wish to have it recognized as a marriage, that right is theirs, too, especially if their religion is accepting of such a decision.
4. Do you support vouchers for school choice?
No, it would never work for the vast majority of American families. It is a logistical nightmare.
5. Do you believe that the 10% of the people who pay 50% of the taxes are over taxed?
No, because they earn about 50% of all income. Seems to be acorrelation, wouldn't you agree? Check out the facts, please.
6. Do you believe that the constitution is a "living" document?
No one ever gets it totally right, nor does the world stay fixed in place. Society has to make judgments within a framework of reason. Thus, adjustments might be needed.
7. What did the founding fathers mean by a separation of church and state?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I think that says enough. Just as I accept the second amendment as cast in stone, this one is fixed, too.
8. What is your view of health care and the responsibility of the Federal government?
A civilized society has a duty and responsibility to provide health care for all its people.
9. Should we drill for oil in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)?
No. I don't think the wolves would like it.
10. For whom will you vote on November 4th?
Mr. Obama.
M.D.
"The difference here is whether our society should have a progressive tax structure. I believe it should have a progressive tax structure. I'm sure we'll part ways with that."
M.D.
Any questions?
Scott Armstrong
Scott:
ReplyDeleteYou distort what it means to be a liberal and merely call anyone who disagrees with you on certain issues to be one. A block of the country chooses to attach a word to those who might disagree with them. Liberals have conversations and work out solutions to complex problems and issues.
Quite frankly, I do not define liberal as you do. My definition, which is a standard one, involves a recognition of multiple views and the need to incorporate multiple opinions into the decision-making process. Like I said, I might have views on particular issues, but I am not far-left liberal who is a villain.
Dean Browning raised and issue about distortion in the ability of Americans to earn a sufficient amount of income to offset the distinct inequality that exists within the country.
Since that is off topic from Mr. O'Hare's post, I'm going to continue the conversation at my blog:
http://donovanforallentown.blogspot.com
As always, Scott, a pleasure.
Keep up the good work.
Michael
Michael, Scott,
ReplyDeleteI am as guilty as everyone else for drifting off topic here. But it was fun!
Michael Donovan:
ReplyDeleteThank you for answering the questions.
Based upon your answers, I would say you are far left. That doesn't make you a vilian.
Like many far left people I know, you think that you are a moderate.
You are not. But I agree, that does not make you evil.
There is room in the good old USA for all views. Let's just be open and accurate about where we stand on the issues.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteBeing on the left does not make you evil it just makes you a liberal/Democrat. Let’s put aside the cute argument of the Oxford Dictionary definition of Liberal, under those terms I too am one. The central point of this exercise was your denial/ mystery of your own political foundations. The discourse revealed you as exactly what many of us already knew you to be and what you clearly are, a Democrat/liberal through and through.
Was that so hard?
Scott Armstrong
Bernie,
ReplyDeleteIt was off topic but none the less instructive. No real need to go on now.
Scott Armstrong