April 14, 2003

Tracy Saboe
800 North Prairie Avenue
Sioux Falls, SD 57104

Dear Tracy:

Thank you for contacting me about a number of issues of importance to
you..  I appreciate the opportunity to respond to some of your concerns.

Let me begin by saying that while I understand your concerns regarding
the United States's role in the United Nations (U.N.), I believe that
the U.N. provides an important forum in which the United States can
promote international cooperation to confront crises like the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and infectious disease.
Such challenges often demand a coordinated international response, and the
U.N. can play an important role in our efforts.

[I had sent a letter to him about getting out of the UN. Urging him to support Ron Paul's, bill to Get the US Out of the UN. It didn't pass in the house, but it made a better showing then last year. For more information about how the UN look want to destroy our liberty here in the US click here]

Having said that, we ought to ensure the same kind of accountability
and reform at the United Nations. as we demand of our own government.
During the last several years, Congress, with my support, has undertaken
an aggressive effort to reform the U.N., demanding greater
burden-sharing and transparency in budgeting.  These are important steps designed
to shape the United Nations into an institution that we can all support.

[Frankly, it's impossible to reform the UN. It's full of third world dictators, using the UN to steal our money. That's the basic problem with democracy. It's "Three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." But the UN is also a front for supporting terrorists. With Syria on the anti terrorist council, and fidel Castro on the Human right's council? I guess, These people in the UN have a very different idea of human rights the I do.]

In addition, I noted your reservations with the annual cost-of-living
adjustment (COLA) for members of Congress.  While I have opposed most
pay raises for members of Congress in the past, I believe that
cost-of-living adjustments, which we provide to judges, federal employees, Social
Security recipients, and VA pensioners, are categorically different,
and I generally support them.

[I wish I could just pass a law and give myself a cost of living adustment. They should reduce government by that much so WE can get a cost of living adustment in the more of reduced taxes]

As you may know, Social Security recipients received a 1.4%
cost-of-living increase in 2003.  Federal employees received a cost-of-living
increase of 4.1%, while judges and Members of Congress received a 3.3%
increase.  I certainly understand how these different percentages can be
confusing.

Federal retirees, military retirees and Social Security recipients
automatically receive a cost-of- living adjustment (COLA) in January of
each year.  This COLA is based on the consumer price index, which is based
on statistics maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  The
purpose of this COLA is to ensure that the purchasing power of pensions is
not eroded by inflation.

[First of all, it should be noted that the "cost of living index" isn't real. It's a Keynesian invention. Regardless, it's pretty much impossible for the government to know everything about cost of living. Besides, they make too much as it is.]

Current federal employees, including judges and Members of Congress,
receive an adjustment each January that is based on the employment cost
index (ECI).  This index, maintained by the Bureau of Labor and
Statistics, takes into account not only the cost-of-living increases, but also
the average increase in private sector salaries.  It is used to ensure
that wages of current federal workers are kept competitive.   I hope
this helps explain why Social Security recipients and retired federal
workers receive a different cost-of-living adjustment than current federal
workers.

[If anything, it should be the other way around.] Although, we need to get privatize social security, so people can invest in their own future -- and do a better job then the government. Social security was a perfect example of Madison's worry that people would suffer from the "tyranny of the Majority" There were more old people then young people, so they got the government to steal young peoples' money for them. We'd be a Nation of Millionaires by now if Social Security hadn't been invented. See also Social Security: False Consciousness and Crisis.

Finally, I noted your support for President Bush's economic stimulus
proposal.  Indeed, I agree with you and President Bush that our economy
is in dire need of a stimulus.  Since January 2001, more than 2 million
private sector jobs have been lost.  Consumers and businesses are
anxious, and state budgets are in crisis.  There is no question that we need
to come together in a bipartisan fashion and chart a new course for our
economy's recovery.

[Maybe State and federal budgets need to quit spending so much so businesses have money so they can keep their employees.]

For these reasons, I recently introduced the Economic Recovery Act of
2003, a  $141 billion economic stimulus plan that would have an
immediate impact, be targeted to middle-income people, and be fiscally
responsible.  The centerpiece of this proposal is a broad-based tax cut that
would provide $1,200 to the average South Dakota family of four.  The tax
cut would be $300 per adult, plus $300 per child, up to two children.
Economists have argued this tax cut is an excellent way to generate
economic growth, as people will spend the money, which will, in turn,
encourage businesses to invest and create jobs.  My plan also includes tax
relief for businesses, especially small businesses.  They will be
allowed to write off investments more quickly.  In addition, I have proposed
a new tax credit to help small businesses pay health insurance premiums
for their employees during these cash-strapped times.

[Yeah, we don't like the Republican's tax cut (because they're the enemy), so we'll make one of our own, that buys different people's votes. Lets encourage people to have even more kids just so they can get more tax cuts. I really don't understand what he's trying to say. Bushes tax cut, gives an up to $1000 deduction per kid. On top of the marginal tax cuts.]

While I agree with President Bush about the need for an economic
stimulus, we differ on the best means to achieve it.  My concern about the
President's plan is that it would do little to jump-start our economy in
the short term, it would disproportionately benefit the wealthiest
Americans, and it would greatly exacerbate our nation's
already-deteriorating long-term fiscal stability.

[Part of this is true. If the government doesn't quit spending money, we'll have to pay for it someway. In my conversation with a phone call from Tim Johnson's office, the lady mentioned what Allan Greenspan had said. If the government doesn't cut spending, the tax cuts really won't do any good. We'll need to pay for it somehow. Either future taxes will have to be raised on our kids causing greater tyrrany for future generations, or the government will print money, causing hyperinflation. That's why a recomended all those ways to cut unconstitutional government spending. Duh]
 

The fact is that while we need the economic stimulus now, more than 90%
of the Bush plan's benefits would not take effect until after 2004.

[OK now, see -- this is way I asked him to speed up the tax cut. I wonder if he even read my e-mail]

Furthermore, while the average millionaire would reap a windfall of
$90,000 under the President's plan, half of South Dakota's taxpayers would
receive less than $100, and one-third would receive nothing at all.

[Again, did he read my e-mail? Tax cuts for the rich, help the poor as well. It doesn't just hurt their profits, it hurts their ability to compete and lower prices to attract customers. It'd make it easier for me to get rich, if I didn't have to worry about paying higher and higher taxes eacah time my income increased.

In addition, recent estimates project that President Bush's budget
would result in a $2 trillion deficit over  the next decade, and that the
national debt would grow to $5 trillion by 2008.  A tax cut of the size
proposed by President Bush - $726 billion over the next decade - would
challenge our diminishing ability to fund such important priorities as
the war in Iraq, the continuing war against terrorism, the effort to
strengthen our homeland security, paying down the national debt and
strengthening the education of our children.  While I certainly agree that a
tax cut is needed to stimulate growth and assist our struggling
economy, I am concerned that the President's plan would cost us more than we
can responsibly afford at this time.

[So, why do you need corporate welfare, farm subsidies, and foreign welfare, again, I mentioned in my e-mail to him, that most of the money he spent on "the war on terrorism" didn't have anything to do with homeland security. See, my responce.]

Please be assured that I will continue to work with the President to
develop the most effective, equitable, and fiscally responsible stimulus
plan possible, and will keep your thoughts in mind when the Senate
considers such legislation.

Once again, I appreciate hearing from you.  Please feel free to stay in
touch.

With best wishes, I am

     Sincerely,
 

     Tom Daschle
     United States Senate

[Basically, this is a propaganda piece, that is cut and paisted, and doesn't answer my concerns. So, I thought I'd send a responce being more specific, showing how he didn't address my concerns. I'm still waiting for a reply.]