Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

BIG GOVERNMENT: A welcome counterpoint to Baird

Letter by Michael Flatley, Gig Harbor on April 13, 2012 at 11:13 am with 61 Comments »
April 16, 2012 12:31 pm

I wanted to thank The News Tribune for placing the viewpoint of John Kass of the Chicago Tribune directly under the weekly piece from Katie Baird.

As Baird makes her arguments, week after week for more and bigger government, it was great to see the description by Kass of just what happens when unbridled and unfunded government goes unchecked.

I hope fans of the Baird viewpoint continued reading Wednesday to see just what happens when government growth continues to surge both in good times and bad. I can only hope Washingtonians will see the light.

Leave a comment Comments → 61
  1. aislander says:

    Amity Shlaes has an excellent article in the WSJ showing the inverse relationship between the size of government with respect to economic output and the health of national economies…

  2. And to see what small Govt looks like, with no regulation, the right wing nirvana just look at India or Mexico.
    That is what the conservatives have in store for us if we just give them the time.

  3. If smaller, less intrusive government meant increased economic output Somalia and the Sudan would be very prospers nations

  4. aislander says:

    xring: Shame on you! You know that’s a canard. Those countries top the list of the LEAST economically-free nations in the world.

    It doesn’t matter to the economy if the interference is coming from a big, intrusive government or warlords getting their cut: all the economy knows is that there is a drag on it.

    Business needs a civil society to thrive with laws against fraud and breach of contract, plus a peaceful, orderly society…

  5. Dave98373 says:

    Anyone who thinks big government can solve all problems needs to look at countries like France and Greece–along with most of Europe–(countries with high taxes, generous labor benefits, early retirements, etc…). And anyone who tries to compare the economic and political power (and GNP!) that the United States has to countries like Mexico, Somalia and Sudan needs to go back to school.

  6. Scottc51 says:

    Our country is not comparable to Mexico, Somalia, India or Sudan. Far more comparable to Europe and even then, we are unique. Our innate ability to make money from free enterprise has never been equalled. Our government(s) need to take its foot off the oxygen hose.

  7. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Can someone link me to the Kass piece? I haven’t taken the print version of the TNT for years, but even if I still did, I put Katie Baird on “fly-over” status some three months ago. I missed the John Kass article the writer references, and now I can’t find it.

    Link? Heading? Anybody got one?

  8. Frankenchrist says:

    Big Government is the keystone of the Republican War on Women. Republicans need Big Government so they can outlaw contraception, outlaw interracial marriage, and outlaw anything that contradicts the Old Testament.

  9. GHTaxPayer says:

    Actually the Dems are waging the war against women – especially old women. Obamacare gives the President unchecked and unilateral power to ban contraception and even abortion. This is a fact. Obama is the first president to ever cut funding of Medicare – $500 Million in 2009. This is a fact.
    And Obama’s minions have already started rationing and banning types of chemo drugs for breast cancer and treatments for the elderly that are covered under most private insurance plans.

    And the Republicans went to war to stop Democrats from keeping slaves in 1861.
    And a higher percentage of Republicans voted for civil rights laws in the 1960s and 1970s as compared to Democrats.
    The last Congressional member of KKK was Robert Byrd (D).

    But don’t let the facts get in the way of your failed liberal policies.

  10. Frankenchrist says:

    Republican War on Women.

    Stay barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, O female voters.

    That’s your job according to the GOP, Mittens and the Teanuts.

    Next up: removing your right to vote.

    Fact: the repuke world is a White Man’s world.

    Women, you’re not qualified to participate; only to breed.

    That is the real mindset of a white repuke male voter.

    A pack of Neanderthal losers…

    …just like the losers they will be in November!

  11. “xring: Shame on you! You know that’s a canard.”

    They don’t like the truth xring!

  12. “Republicans need Big Government”

    They do and they bring it to us more so than the Democrats.
    The ironic thing is they need the big Govt to control the people and keep us under their ‘control’ to create a level of fear so no one dares to speak out.
    That makes their plan of letting the corporations rule (fascism)easier to implement.

  13. “Obamacare gives the President unchecked and unilateral power to ban contraception and even abortion. This is a fact.”

    If by “fact” you mean ‘out right total lie’, then yep.

  14. Meanwhile – in Tennessee – the anti-big government folks vote to define hand-holding and kissing as “gateway sexual activities” and specifically ban teachers from demonstrating “gateway activities”.


    Yes…I know…huge thread drift but this one was so outrageous I felt compelled to post it.

  15. Big Govt control brought to you by the small Govt party.

  16. NotPoliticallyCorrect says:

    I say we fire all of them and start over.

  17. bB –
    ” …. http://thinkprogress.org ……. I felt compelled to post it.”

    You must have been feeling something, to be compelled to post a rehash of a ‘Daily Pos’ story by ‘StinkRegress’. Could it be possible to get any more politically polarized than that?

  18. All Mr. Flatley proves is that he knows nothing about Greece’s economic problems and that goes for Mr. Kass too. Talk about uninformed!
    For Vox: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/04/11/2103004/while-parthenon-glows-with-sunlight.html

  19. Pacman33 says:

    Scottc51 said –
    “Far more comparable to Europe and even then, we are unique.”

    They are very aware of this ….. and they hate it. The left hates uniqueness and distinguishing characteristics in general. They must only view issues from the perspective of the collective and reject the values of personal responsibility and individuality. Stemming from their fragile ego’s fear of distinction accompanied by their self-loathing; it is the left’s revulsion of themselves, as individuals, that motivates their quest for mundane mediocrity. Thus, by muting their innate shortcomings with a uniform herd, they are safe from the imaginary predators that stalk them. It is why they WILL NOT REST until the day we can’t distinguish the United States, the last holdout, from the long lineup of Euro-Clones.

    A leftist’s deceit for diversity is only subdued for the purpose of labeling victims in their “Championing the of the Oppressed”. Where once they sought to empower the weak and struggling; they are now instrumental in maintaining and expanding their victimhood. A manipulated but loyal voter base is essential to sustain the position of power required to execute their agenda.

  20. That is some special pac of….something you’ve got the pacman, be sure not to get any on you!

  21. took14theteam says:

    Did Sumnone speak?

  22. Some more “small government” this time from Arizona.

    Arizona Bill 2549 that passed the House Thursday and is now awaiting the governors approval reads, in part:

    “It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person. It is also unlawful to otherwise disturb by repeated anonymous electronic or digital communications the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person at the place where the communications were received.”


    Several of us would be in trouble as I know of many digital communications on this site that “annoy or offend”.

  23. Big Govt solutions to control the masses.

  24. Frankenchrist says:

    Mitt Romney’s campaign should be renamed after the Titanic because they’ll both have the same end result.

  25. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Thanks Pub!

  26. Lynnwoodfats says:

    “Mitt Romney’s campaign should be renamed after the Titanic because they’ll both have the same end result.”

    I second that emotion

  27. Frankenchrist says:

    Mitt Romney avoided the draft by spending two years on a “Mormon mission” in France while everyone else his age sucked it up and went to Vietnam.

    Number of military-aged males in the Romney family: 5

    Number of military-aged males in the Romney family who served in the military while their nation is at war (2001-present): 0

    Number of Cadillacs in the Romney’s garage: “a couple.”

    Number of elevators in the Romney’s garage: one.

    Number of nannies, butlers, chauffeurs, and domestic servants that “Stay-at-Home Mom” Mrs. Romney hired with $300 million: who knows?

    What’s that sound? It sounds like someone is shaking an Etch-a-Sketch!

  28. tree_guy says:

    The Kennedy family was rich beyond belief. I don’t remember hearing any Democrats complaining about John F. Kennedy’s elaborate pre=presidential lifestyle. Didn’t JFK enjoy domestic help, fancy autos and elevators? His wealth didn’t seem to disqualify him from the office of the presidency.

  29. commoncents says:

    have to agree…what does the wealth of the family have to do with the ability of the man to runh the country? If anything, I think that it better prepares someone for the role. It’s not like his staff, the press, and the American people would neglect to inform him that a particular stance might not play out too well in middle class America.

    I’m not voting for the man…but it certainly ain’t cuz of his wealth. And if I had it, I’d have a few Caddy’s too. Ok, I wouldn’t, but I would have that car elevator and some domestic help (can’t bring myself to calling htem servants).

  30. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Spare us the talking point crap. You hypocrites all voted for Lurch Kerry in ’04.

    John Kerry net worth in 2004; 750 Million. For you leftist trolls, that would be 3 1/4 time more than Romney’s 2011 net worth.

    “Youuuu raaang?”

  31. tree_guy, didn’t you know that wealthy “progressives” are excused from the rich-white-guy tirades on these threads? Why? Because they are notoriously good about saying the right thing to and about the poor despite their lavish limousine lifestyles. And if you SAY the right thing, your actual conduct is irrelevant.

  32. Frankenchrist says:

    Gee, is John Kerry running for president? I guess he is in the guise of Mittens Romney.

    Same result coming, too.

  33. Frankenchrist says:

    Of course, John Kerry didn’t dodge the draft and go to France while his buddies went to Vietnam.

  34. concernedtacoma7 says:

    No, he took shrapnel from his own weapon 3 times. Idiot. Rich idiot.

  35. Frankenchrist says:

    “No, he took shrapnel from his own weapon 3 times.”

    Shrapnel? His own weapon?

    Wow, you have zero experience or even familiarity with the military. Your ignorance in breathtaking.

  36. “didn’t you know that wealthy “progressives” are excused from the rich-white-guy tirades on these threads?”

    An out right lie from the far right.

  37. concernedtacoma7 says:

    A lie? Mitt is attacked for his wealth, but Kerry, JFK, and others got a pass. Hypocrites.

    You may not like how he did it, but at least Mitt earned it. He was responsible for making a payroll, managing and leading. No ‘community organizing’ for him.

  38. itwasntmethistime says:

    Oh good. I’m not the only one who thinks Katie Baird is ridiculous.

  39. aislander says:

    So…Mitt is being attacked for succeeding? That must be it, since he didn’t receive a big inheritance…

    No wonder we’re in trouble. We glorify failure and don’t have a problem with inheriting wealth–or marrying it–as long as the correct platitudes are in ones mouth…

  40. “Mitt is attacked for his wealth, but Kerry, JFK, and others got a pass.”

    Now thats a lie.
    Kerry and JFK were and still are hounded for their wealth.

  41. “So…Mitt is being attacked for succeeding?”

    Even worse; Attacked for not failing with un-originality. Pre-packaged leftist hate-drivel. Plag-state-ism.


    Animal Mother
    Reply #2 Apr. 15, 2012 – 11:43 PM EST

    “Pass this on because we’ll NEVER see these facts in the main stream media on Fox News.”

  42. aislander says:

    I LIKE rich people, especially those who earn their wealth as Mitt did. I’ve always worked for rich people–you have to in the private sector unless you work for yourself, and I’ve NEVER (never would) worked for the government–and never for poor people. On reflection, I think a couple of my former employers were middle class, although I’m sure the Dems would like to tax them as if they were rich.

    I don’t mind people who have inherited wealth either, except those tend to be liberals. Old money people are usually more attractive than poor people and don’t care what other people think about them, and that careless confidence is as attractive as physical beauty itself.

    Since I know how the economy works, I also know that many of the things I have were once luxury items, affordable only to the rich or to those willing to sacrifice everything else in order to buy one. That the rich bought them caused the price to trend downward. Think of a sixty-inch flat screen ten years ago for an example.

    You have to create wealth in order to benefit from it…

  43. Obama is a MULTIMILLIONAIRE.
    Just because he portrays the discretion and the class of a back-alley-thug, doesn’t change the fact that Obama is worth 8 digits compared to Mitt’s 9.

    Going back to Kerry or Kennedy makes it more absurd, but isn’t necessary. The ridicule of Mitt’s financials is foolishly hypocritical considering today’s realities.

  44. since he didn’t receive a big inheritance…

    He got cut out of his dad’s will?

  45. a common estate-tax reduction strategy known as a dynasty trust relies on skipping generations. Did Romney pass on his inheritance to his kids for tax reasons? It’s hard to know without seeing his tax returns—and that’s another reason why he should release them.

  46. itwasntmethistime says:

    aislander — Agreed. Your last paragraph made me laugh as I recalled how the kids from the Occupy movement compared themselves, with their cell phones and Gore-Tex jackets, to the literally starving people who gathered in 1931 to ask for help with food.

  47. averageJoseph says:

    It’s worth noting that JFKerry’s stay at home wife inheirited the wealth they sooo enjoyed. You don’t suppose they ever passed up a deduction on their income tax so they would pay their “fair share”?

    Maybe when Obama releases his college transcripts Romney will feel like releasing his tax statement. We can only guess what would be more revealing.

  48. concernedtacoma7 says:

    So BB sees where a conversation is going, googles a term like “Romney taxes” and grabs the first far-left article he can find. Research complete.

    Sorry bud, but have posted dated garbage numerous times recently.

    And who cares if he passed on money to his kids? BHO did that just this year (motherjones probably missed that one). Where is your outrage? Do you not desire to do the same? Even if it is just an educational trust (since inherited money is evil and really belongs to the govt).

  49. Aislander;
    No government = no law = no economy. So sorry but the Constitution begins WE THE PEOPLE not ‘we business owners’.

    A small, weak government is worse than big government, and will destroy us even quicker.

    Tell that to the big corporations that are destroying us by sending jobs overseas and stashing their profits in offshore accounts to avoid paying US taxes.

    Pac33 – totally wrong as usual.

    GOP real speak = smaller less intrusive government = no regulation on business and no tax on the rich.

    JFK was one of those odd millionaires who believe in paying their fair share and doing what is best for our country rather than what is best for their private offshore accounts.

    CT7 –
    ‘shrapnel from his own weapon 3 times” OMAA – obviously you never served the armed forces.

    Mittens wants you zombie brains to think he ‘earned’ it by helping US companies stay in business and creating/ keeping well paying jobs here in this country.

    “Obama is worth 8 digits compared to Mitt’s 9” – only if you count the two digits to the right of the decimal point in Obama’s number.

    Romney’s net worth is between $190 and $250 million, Obama’s is about $5 million.

    (ie 9 digits to 6 digits)

  50. Pacman33 says:

    Barack Obama avoided the military by spending several years on a “Moron Mission”. He invested grant funding he scored toward ‘improving schools’ in Chicago, with a confessed domestic terrorist. While everyone else sucked it up and joined the military, 0bama was suing banks for “NOT” practicing Predatory Lending. My bad, before they poisoned economies around the world, the left would have used terms like ‘sued for discrimination’ against the “credit-score challenged”, by Citigroup for not issuing the toxic loans that would be our demise (pre-crash = ‘redlining’).

    Number of military-aged siblings in the Obama family: 8

    Number of military-aged members in the Obama family who served in the military while their nation is at war (2001-present): 0

    Number of Cadillacs in the 0bama’s garage: A fleet of stretch Cadis.
    Each Cadi the length of the “couple” Mitt bought from Obama’s corporation, as Government Motors modified them to ride on medium-duty truck chassis.

    Number of elevators in the 0bama’s garage: none. It would clash with the vintage style and historical designation of 0bama’s Georgian revival mansion on the South Side of Chicago.

    Number of nannies, maids and personal chefs for the champion for “Stay-at-Home-Liberals”, 0bama, hired with Michelle’s $300K /year during their poor years in Chicago? One of each.
    And the Romneys? None
    “Growing up, we never had a nanny or a ‘mommy’s helper.’ Never went to daycare,” Ben Romney, the youngest of the couple’s five sons, wrote on his Facebook page.

    What’s that sound? It sounds like someone is shaking a Bull-ship tree and got hit in the head with a ripe one.

  51. So BB sees where a conversation is going, googles a term like “Romney taxes” and grabs the first far-left article he can find. Research complete.


    aislander brought it up. I googled. Read about 5 or 6 entries. Posted the one I thought was most relevant and led to another discussion: Why has Romney been so reticent to share his tax info?

  52. The thing about Romney is that he has been on so many sides of so many issues I really can’t nail him for his stance on anything.

  53. aislander says:

    xring: You have it exactly backwards. It’s no economy equals no government.

    The economy came first, and without law and without government there is still an economy. Not that I’m advocating for anarchy…

    And one million to 9,999,999 is seven digits, not six…

    Besides, Romney paid for his own stuff, but we’re on the hook to underwrite ‘bama’s lavish life style…

  54. btw – it was the GOP candidates who first brought up Mitt’s taxes and his wealth..

  55. Pacman33 says:

    How can you argue with xristos lesson in ‘leftist math’?:
    “Obama’s is about $5 million.
    (ie 9 digits to 6 digits)”

    Obama’s net worth is estimated to be $10.1 -> $11.8 million.
    Which is consistent with my statement – Obama is worth 8 digits compared to Mitt’s 9.




  56. Obama is worth 8 digits compared to Mitt’s 9

    Interesting how one can use numbers to reduce differences. Estimates of Mitt’s worth range from 200 to 500 million. Estimates of Obama’s worth are around 10 mil. You have reduced a difference of 25 fold to a single digit – a mere finger’s worth.

    One can be very deceptive while not really lying…can’t they?

    btw – one of the big arguments for Mitt is that he is a successful businessman. If he is such a successful businessman – why is he not in the billionaires’ club?

  57. aislander says:

    beerBoy writes: “If [Mitt Romney] is such a successful businessman – why is he not in the billionaires’ club?”

    That’s a complicated question, but to hazard a theory, I would say that Mitt didn’t have the single-minded focus required because he was raising a family and I’ve heard that he was at least as devoted to it as he was to business, and probably more so.

    His family is grown, so he can focus on being President.

    Someone who can create a fortune that may be as large as $500 million with divided attention is just the person we need to address the problems faced by America, especially since that will be his sole purpose.

  58. I thought it was because he has been running for President so long that he put almost all of his fortune in blind trusts. As Mitt has said, he is “unemployed”.

  59. “especially those who earn their wealth as Mitt did.”

    Gawd you people are gullible!

  60. “Someone who can create a fortune that may be as large as $500 million with divided attention is just the person we need to address the problems faced by America, especially since that will be his sole purpose.”

    Hows the koolaid taste this season???

  61. Wow! Mitt managed to struggle through college on the stock portfolio his dad gave him and then invest the remainder all the while he had “divided attention” because his wife was staying home with the children! Talk about your Profiles in Courage!

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0