Refuting Neal Boortz: Ed's Responses

The other blog dated today is an essay by Neal Boortz, syndicated talk radio host based in Atlanta.

In this post, I attempt to refute his points. The numbered, boldfaced headings relate to Neal's headings so that you can flip back and forth to maintain things in context.

Here is the text of the email that I sent in reply:

Thank you for sending the Boortz column. You may know that Neal has been a fixture on Atlanta radio for decades. This is where he got his start before syndication. By the way, he spoke at Leah's high school graduation from Yeshiva High School. I have great respect for his intellect and debating skills.

Those of you who didn't get the original emailing, please read the article below -- WAY DOWN THE PAGE before reading my comments.

Here is my take on his arguments:

1. The Race Factor. Neal writes, "there will be no name-calling, at least not here, for people who cast their vote on the basis of race in this election." There are many non-blacks who will vote against Obama because he is black -- including some that I know personally. While that might also be understandable, it is unsupportable.

2. The Race Card. What's his point? Of course there will be people who cry foul even when there's no foul. But there is an old joke that says "Just because I'm paranoic doesn't mean that there's nobody out to get me."
There have been racist attacks and fear mongering. Rush Limbaugh's outlandish statement about Colin Powell's endorsement IS racist; there can be no disputing of that. Mendacious emails circulating on the internet about Obama's father's tribe are both racist and dirty. Likewise the charges that he's a Muslim and/or a terrorist. These all play to the fear factor that is vestigial in many otherwise mature citizens.

3. The Republicans. His point is that the Republicans deserve to be ousted, but that Obama might be worse. Of couse, he makes no substantive points in this section of his essay.

4. Obama's Friends. Neal writes, "If Barack Obama was applying for a security clearance as a government employee, these associations would disqualify him. " That's an interesting conjecture. I'd like to know if it's true. I suppose that it is not. While it might not be attractive to have a few ugly acquaintances, one really has to look at the complete picture. Otherwise, how would those voting for McCain reconcile his association with a VP candidate that a) once politicked for the secession of Alaska, and b) violated her state's ethics code?
Reverend Wright: He had a pulpit, but there are lots of folks who hate what the US either has done or is doing. If you were a native American, how much would you love the good ol' USA? Rhetoric is rhetoric. I don't know what you did or said in the 60's, but I frequently said that the US was doing despicable things during the Vietnam war -- both in the international arena and at home. People vilified us at that time.
William Ayers: If you want to get things done, you join the boards of NGOs and charities that do things. If another member of the board is someone you don't like, tough. Obama has condemned what Ayers had done.
Tony Rezko: The Chicago Sun-Times writes about this: http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article. All campaigns receive contributions from unsavory people; and then the campaigns either donate the money or give it back. Do you suppose that communists and ku klux klanners don't donate to democrat and republican campaigns?

5. Obama's Tax Policies: "...increase taxes on the evil, hated rich." This is just too much. Is Neal trying to foment a class war? Neal has one point right: we may differ on what we think the role of government should be. In fact, I -- personally -- think that fairness is a valid goal of government. Not to take from the rich and give to the poor, but to establish a "level playing field." That takes money.
I, for one, have had no problem paying taxes to be able to live in this great country.
During the Clinton administration, taxes were lower than previously, but higher than during the Bush years. We had prosperity; we were reducing our national debt; I was better off.
At another time we can discuss the contribution of the employees to the wealth of management.

6. Does this reflect your philosophy? Maybe so; maybe not. That's why we have elections. On the other hand, it's irresponsible for Neal to suggest, " they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury." Neal has used the following quip frequently on his radio show, referring to those he perceives as living off the fat of the welfare state: "those who vote for a living." You may recall that it was during the Clinton administration that welfare was reformed.
I have an equally pithy suggestion that there are those who lobby for a living. You may know that by far the biggest doles and favors don't go to the welfare freeloaders, but to huge agricultural conglomerates (farm subsidies), manufacturers of corn-based ethanol, financial institutions (bailout), the auto industry (subsidized loans),....
In fact "my phylosophy" is that we ought to have a more forthright discussion of what our economic goals are and how to get there. What DO we want to subsidize? What DO we want to discourage? What is the best way to get there?
I think we should ensure that energy technology and manufacturing are healthy inside the US. Likewise information technology and agriculture. Those are strategic interests. High employment and ownership of business and property should also be encouraged. I don't think it is obvious or trivial what actions we should take to get there. Lowering taxes or raising taxes is only part of the strategy.

7. Those Amazing Vanishing Jobs. He hasn't said anything substantive in this section yet, but he does keep on with the incendiary rhetoric. Talk about wackos like Reverend Wright all you like, but Neal knows how to use divisive and incendiary rhetoric.

8. There’s your first lie. Small business does, indeed create most of the jobs. Having made my living as a small business owner and operator, I can say definitively that taxes or lack of them is not one of the factors that a successful small business owner uses to decide whether to fire an employee.
The more money a small business makes, the better off the employees and owners are. Some taxation of those increases profits does not make the profits go away. More profits means more income, taxes or not.

9. That’s the second lie. A lie of omission. By the way, my business employed around 15 for the last few years before I sold it -- after 21 years in business. You may recall that employment rates were higher before the Bush tax cuts than after.

10. Pandering to the Unions .. at Your Expense. Neal spends a lot of words writing about the Employee Free Choice Act, emphasizing that "It will eliminate the secret ballot in union recognition elections."
Apparently he hopes you have not read the bill. An important clause of the bill -- the one which he seems to find objectionable -- is that if a majority of workers petition to be represented by a union, then a ballot is not necessary. In fact, a vote would be moot, as I see it.
The letter signed by the congressman urges that secret ballots are essential to avoid intimidation. But if somebody already sticks his neck out and actually signs a petition to request elections, and a majority of the workers sign such a petition, then what's the problem? It's already a majority.

11. The Supreme Court. It's pretty presumptious to suggest that Obama would appoint justices that are anything but qualified. And even more so to suggest that congress would approve such an appointment.

Conclusion:

All that said, I'm glad that I could make these statements in writing, since Neal is such a good debater. That is not to say that his arguments are valid, but that he knows how to state the argument.

If he were to go on the air with my response in hand, he would verbally tear it to pieces -- not necessarily based on facts, but on rhetoric. Even if I were there, I probably could not call up the arguments to defend myself in a timely fashion.

Neal says many things that ARE true; I admire his knowledge and skills. But not everything he says is true. Most things he says are his (reasoned) opinion.