David Shagoury: David Shagoury - Essays And Opines

Class warfare gimmicks

Below is an article I wrote as a published columnist for The Bulletin Newspapers regarding the Bush Tax Cut debate of 2001. It brings a certain pleasant repose and a timely affirmation of one's political identity to harken back to a time when our President acted in accordance with the high expectations and ideological perspective of those of us who ardently supported him, and when he was respected nationally for it. Unfortunately, even this glaring success of the President, which is largely responsible for spurring the subsequent economic growth we have enjoyed during challenging times, has to be ultimately viewed as somewhat qualified due to his failure, even with a Republican majority in both Houses of Congress, to make these cuts permanent. Now, this policy mantle of success is highly vulnerable to the new Pelosi/ Reid majority that has risen as a result of the costly failures of the Cheney/Bush Administration's mid-east adventurism.
Please enjoy this brief stroll through the recent past, when our philosophical mandate and its policy manifestations were clear, and the debate proved inevitably that are ideas were morally and practically superior: and to a time when the ideological fissures lied within the Democrat Party, while succesful and popular policymaking and its commensurate popular confidence were so discernably our province.

Class warfare gimmicks

The Bulletin, March 29, 2001

I will begin this column by advocating a radical proposition; that it is both right and economically logical for all Americans to enjoy a tax cut, even those who have attained a higher than average level of income. Yet those brave fighters for the workingman, and antagonists of the wealthy, those liberal Congressional leaders, are obstructing tax relief for all Americans again. Democrat politicians are desperate to keep as much of the savings and earnings of America’s workers under Washington’s control, just as they are desperate to deny the new President a political victory. Perhaps they are even more scandalized by the audacity of George W. Bush. He was after all the first serious, viable (sorry Bob Dole) G.O.P. nominee to resurrect the fundamental American principle of low taxes since Ronald Reagan; he then responded to media and Democratic demands for specificity by presenting a comprehensive plan early in the campaign. Now he actually kept his word to the American people by introducing that plan to Congress for passage, resisting his opponents, who have used their standard class warfare gimmick, and a new rather humorous, Hooveresque debt reduction angle to intimidate him into violating that pledge.

The fact that The Bush plan significantly increases debt retirement, and provides the highest percentage of relief to more modest income taxpayers, are mere inconveniences that can’t be allowed to interfere with Liberal pedantic angst. Also, a message to those susceptible to the Democratic debt arguments; America’s national debt is derived predominantly from an addiction to excessive spending, not from the insatiable desire of Washington politicians to cut your taxes. The Bush plan as originally sent to Congress would alter the current tax rate structure of 15%, 28%, 31%, 33%, 36% and 39.6%, to a simplified and reduced structure of 4 categories of 10%, 15%, 25% and 33% in 6 years. After eight years of Clintonian deceit, the American people will finally receive a real ‘middle class tax cut’. Promising significant tax relief was merely a venal sin compared to legislating such a policy; that’s an outright provocation to those who have been defending and explaining Presidential mendacity for eight years, and believe in an ever expanding government role in (and take from) the private economy. The focus of this tax debt should not be on opposing a new President for partisan purposes, but rather it should be on the best interest of the American taxpayer and our nation’s economy.

We must bring proper scrutiny upon those who assail the size of the income tax cut. As currently constructed, the Bush proposal on marginal rate reductions represents much less than a third of merely the surplus. Further, the estimated 10 year $1.6 trillion tax reduction sum is ironically less than the spending increases on a per year average over the last four years of the Clinton Administration, and even less in dollars than the 4% per annum rate of spending growth projected under the Bush budget. An honest appraisal renders one to conclude that it is the claims that the plan is too big, and not the plan itself that is truly irresponsible. As to the fundamental pillar of the opponents, whether it’s the “rich” that benefit from the Bush proposal, the above enumeration of the rate reductions, the lowest category receives a full 1/3 benefit, by the far the greatest percentage decrease of all taxpayers. Further, both the Administration and Congressional Republicans have shown a willingness to consider judicious compromise with more reasoned critics, and have all ready passed a new iteration of the Plan from the House that accelerates the reduction for the lowest bracket.

Yet predictably undeterred by facts, liberal potentates Gephardt and Daschle brought out a Lexus and a more inexpensive car in a typically simplistic attempt to evoke envy of the “wealthy”, because the Republican President’s proposal will save all Americans money. The predicate being that if someone who has achieved a modicum of financial success i.e. Lexus owner, will benefit from the tax policy, then that policy is inherently unfair to all others. Paradoxically, it was these very same Democrats that supported Bill Clinton’s campaign pledge reversal by levying a gas tax increase that has cost the owners of used Fords as much as the owners of a new Mercedes. They also have warned of a return to the eighties deficits as if completely unaffected by the objective facts of a recent history, which unambiguously demonstrate that federal government revenues actually doubled due to the growth and prosperity spurred by Reagan’s deep tax cuts on income and capital formation, from which we have been the beneficiaries of since. As aforementioned, deficits were a symptom of a refusal of Democrat majorities to constrain government spending. As the need for substantial tax cutting is becoming even more evident in the midst of faltering economic indicators, some Senate Democrats are literally suggesting the President abandon his proposal for sustained tax reductions and just send everyone a one-time check of $500. Only a contemporary liberal Democrat could confuse a plan to allow Americans to continually pay less of their personal/family income to the government into a government welfare program!

The Left has been emboldened by the impressive success Bill Clinton enjoyed as a message manipulator. Their inveterate hostility even to this very modest tax cut proposal is quite revealing, and hence is a clarion call for vigilance on the part of the average citizen. Senate Democrats (and most assuredely their successors for some years to come) are currently vested in the hope that they can convince us that a tax reduction is actually a government expenditure; and that it is more important to deny our neighbor than to reward ourselves. President Bush and the GOP are vested in the evident and sublimely American principle that the more money Americans keep, the better it is for us as individuals and as a nation. The numbers matter, but the more important battle is which of these conflicting ideals will prevail and be the governing fiscal ethos of our future. The American people must win this battle in order to ultimately win the war.

On the Road to Damascus

David J. Shagoury The Bulletin Newspapers, May 10, 2001

On the Road to Damascus John Paul II has just completed his historic trip to Syria and Greece and the state of Christianity is the better for it, as is hope for a more peaceful regional future that a holy man can sometimes inspire. Following the path of the Apostle Paul, and his own personal conscience, John Paul II apologized for past transgressions to his Eastern Orthodox Christian brethren, and also became the first major western Christian leader to speak in a mosque; doing both as his personal imprimatur on the need for reconciliation between the two pillars of liturgical Christianity (Orthodoxy and Catholicism), and the need for a greater understanding with Islam. While this notable homage produced neither evident nor immediate Damascene conversions, there are several reasons why the visionary of Rome chose this itinerary.

For this Pope, history and its significance on the present conditions affecting the world have never been remote or insignificant. John Paul was the man who as Cardinal of Poland was implacable in his leadership for freedom in the midst of communism, and as the leader of the largest and most powerful Christian Church, placed all of his moral and political capital to assist President Reagan in achieving the greatest mass liberation from tyranny and fear that mankind has ever known. He did so like his secular partner, while enduring much vitriolic critique, even from potent elements within his own Church (just as Reagan persevered through intense and hateful opposition from within his own nation’s political establishment) and emerged as the great moral leader we know him now to be. To such a man, the historic significance of Damascus is not lost, nor more importantly is the role history plays in the pursuit of a more just and secure future. Syria is the first place where the followers of a certain Nazarene were called Christians. Its capital, Damascus, is where the dark persecutor Saul became the aurora of Jesus known as Paul, converted by Jesus himself. It is home to the earliest of Christians, many of whom still speak Aramaic (Syriac), the language that Jesus spoke. In Damascus, the Pope met and embraced the Antiochian Patriarch Ignatius, who is also a successor of the Disciple Peter, as Peter was the Bishop of Antioch before traveling west. John Paul, eschewing contemporary misperceptions, went home to the cradle of Christianity, and took the entire world with him. This is John Paul, ecumenical leader and historian.

Damascus was also the capital of the first Islamic empire (known as the Umayyad Dynasty), which achieved a greater horizontal expanse than even Imperial Rome; and with Europe in the descent of the Dark ages, once again was conspicuous as the beacon of the civilized world. Centuries later, Saladin, the secular leader most revered in Islamic history, chose Damascus as his capital from which he expunged the Crusaders from the Middle East. Certainly history reveals a violent competition between the two Faiths. It is therefore no coincidence that John Paul II offered prayerful comments at the Umayyad Mosque as an expression of respect and fraternal affection to his fellow Monotheists who have often believed themselves to be unfairly portrayed by western culture and media. In an ancient region, the respect and affection expressed by the historical leader of western religion will always be remembered, and could energize efforts around the globe for enhanced relations and understanding between the West and Islam. This is John Paul the healer and visionary.

In our era, Damascus has been the ideological heart of Arab, secular nationalism. It has been the center of military and political opposition to Israeli policy, but in line with the new paradigm of peace that emerged in the early nineties, it has publicly expressed a desire for peace with Israel. There is an oft cited adage describing the quagmire known as the Middle East conflict; ‘that there can be no war without Cairo, and can be no peace without Damascus’. John Paul visited the only town reverted back to Syria, Quneitra, in the occupied Golan Heights as a symbol to all parties about the universal hope for, and means to regional peace. This is John Paul he statesman and peacemaker. Pope John Paul’s trek to the Near East will certainly not result in an expeditious race to peace by regional combatants, nor immediately change details at the negotiation table, but its essence may be lasting in impact. In a region too inclined to view dogmatic differences as dire, his ecumenical message is sincere and unambiguous: in a region too willing to attack others as heretics and infidels, his message of respect and commonality is provocative: in a region too prone to achieve gain by military force, his message of peace is instructive. Expect no miracles from this religious Pilgrimage; but perhaps hope was vivified somewhat in this troubled birthplace of civilization by an indefatigable Polish freedom fighter. David J. Shagoury The Bulletin May 10, 2001

Recent Observations Of Media And Culture

David Shagoury, Published in The Bulletin Newspapers June 28, 2001

The bizarre story of Chandra Levy, the intern in Washington who surreptitiously disappeared, has been a media focal point for almost two months now.  Much time and attention has been dedicated to this one particular missing person, although one has to feel nothing but compassion for her family and their horrible circumstance, after viewing the endless speculation about the issue I began to wonder if this massive media exposure would prompt all appropriate law enforcement departments to respond too aggressively to this case to the detriment of other families suffering the same horror.

Ms Levy was unknown prior to her tragic disappearance, and although it is completely justified that the media treat this case with more interest than most due to the possible entanglement of a sitting member of Congress; does the case itself justify two months of headlines without at least some significant change or development in the story?  Perhaps if the story was more directed at the publicly elected Congressman’s knowledge, then the incessant drama could be more justified, but generally speaking this is not the case.  Until Congressman Condit voluntarily or otherwise makes a significant statement and/or answers media questions, I would ask us all to think more about the hundreds of names we don’t know of whose families are mired in pain and who may be sadly pondering the idea hat due to the potential for a salacious element to the Levy disappearance, their loved one is less important and deemed less worthy of receiving the necessary attention to bring that daughter, son, husband or wife home for the 4th of July.

Every so often we are provided with a story so gruesome that it really defies even the expanding imagination of criminal destruction we have been numbed by experience to acknowledge.  Locally, the Stuart case pushed out understanding of the increasing lack of moral sense that a self indulgent, post modern society can produce when we were forced to accept the fact that a man planned and executed the murder of his own wife and unborn child.  Yet at the time, the media acted in a manner appropriately consistent with our societal values, and subsequent to discovering the sordid reality of the case correctly avoided even providing potential justification for the assailant’s heinous act.  Unfortunately, that good standard has not endured to the current tragedy we all have now been subjected to.

In Texas a very sick and depraved woman killed her own children; all five of them.  Notice that I did use the word “sick”, but certainly not in an exculpatory way.  For any person who can wantonly plan and perform the murder of five innocent children is evil and sick, and should be dealt with accordingly.  And any mother who can actually bring herself to doing the same to her own children possessed an evil that cannot be justified, because to do so subliminally expresses a message that there can be a reason for such a hideous violation against nature.  And yet, over the past week, certain T.V. reports actually led their report of this story with a reference to the Monster-Mother’s problems with post-partum depression.  This hideous if unintentional presentation was enticing the public to view this unparalleled case of criminal depravity as primarily a product of the hormonal imbalance that affect certain women after birth.  In truth, that media malfeasance is a reflection of what depths society can be led towards by powerful message makers.  For as we all know, regardless of what other behavioral deviances they can be fully blamed for, neither depression, nor hormonal affliction can justify the gross treachery that occurred in Texas.  More importantly, we as a society need to vigilantly guard against those who for political, professional or cultural reasons continue to explain the victim hood of the perpetrator regardless of the extremities of the crime.  In Texas, a woman chose to have many children.  She had a problem, but continued to give birth, and never loved her own babies enough to leave them to the care of another.  In Texas, a woman murdered all of her own children.  Her condition can provide an exculpatory explanation for certain unstable and yes even criminal behavior, but it cannot be allowed to provide a cart blanche to this most unnatural act, or more importantly any comparable act in the future.  Killing one’s own innocent children is not even remotely within the aegis of “crimes of passion”, it is a unique act of dark depravity that should introduce the guilty to her end.

In Texas, a mother murdered all five of her own innocent children….. that’s the story.

A Taxing Parable

David Shagoury published in The Bulletin Newspapers, May 31, 2001

I have substantially revised and amended the following parable, which has been circulating about via the internet from an unknown original source, to provide a simple and I hope a helpful illustration for readers regarding the “fairness” aspect of the tax cut debate in Washington.

Every night, 10 men met at a restaurant for dinner.  At the end of the meal, the bill would arrive.  They were charged $100 for the food that they shared.  Every night they lined up in the same order at the cash register.  The first four men paid nothing at all.  The fifth paid $1.  The sixth man paid $3.  The next three men paid $7, $20 and $25, respectively.  The last man was required to pay the remaining balance of $44.  The 10 men were in a routine when the restaurant provided them with a significant discount.  Since the cost to present the dinner was actually about $70, it announced that it was cutting down its prices:  Now it would charge only $80 for dinner for the 10 men.  This reduction wouldn’t affect the first four men- they would continue to eat at no cost.  The fifth person now had his one dollar charge eliminated, and the sixth man’s contribution dropped from $3 to $2.  The seventh, eighth and ninth men had proportionally higher dollars saving, and last man was left with a bill of $38.  Outside of the restaurant, the men compare their saving when angry outbursts began to erupt, not from any of the men themselves, but from those who were purporting to represent the diners.  Hey, they yelled, “the 6th man only got $1 out of the total reduction of $20, and he”-pointing to last man “got $6.”  Then they assailed the new reductions by citing that the fifth man only got $1 in saving too.  They howled that it is unfair that the last man received six times more than him.  Finally, these purported representatives screeched in indignant fury because the first four men, who did not pay any of the bill at all, obviously received no dollar reduction and therefore didn’t realize a savings, and so the purported representatives declared the discount unfair and opposed it.

As an aside, these representatives didn’t seem to ask what the diners might be able to afford collectively with the extra $20!

This parable, like the tax plan it is intended to support, is certainly not perfect, but its lesson is beneficial and quite relevant to the continual liberal rant against the Bush tax cut that has passed.  The tax cut modestly and over an extended period of years reduces the rate of taxation on the income of those who pay the vast majority of taxes.  Also, the greatest percentage of tax relief goes to the lower in come earners as the aforementioned parable denotes.  Another grossly ignored fact is that the approximately $1.4 trillion in savings the Bush plan provides to the taxpayers of America over a 10 year period (let’s please agree now to stop referring to a tax cut as a government cost:  an increasingly lazy heresy that our governing class lapses into far too carelessly, but sadly to purposeful effect), is not only humble in comparison to our economy’s GDP, but is also eclipsed by what the American people will be asked to pay in direct transfer/ welfare payments (e.g. AFDC, Medicaid, food stamps etc.) during the same time period.

It is my hope and belief that President Bush will become progressively more pointed in characterizing the moral distinction between enhancing the freedom and independence of the people, and inciting the envy and resentment from the people.  Today there are too many people who are NOT rich, but who are being forced to have their behavior excessively governed by an overly complex and punitive tax code that hi defended by liberals who seem dedicated to enhancing their own self-image as an enlightened elite on the backs of many Americans who are striving to improve the lot of their families.  Now, as in the eighties, it is time to again reaffirm our nation’s endemic and sacred association with upward mobility; not punish its pursuit.

This new tax cut provided by the steadfast leadership of President Bush will be of meaningful benefit on income taxpayers across the spectrum.  Yet it must also be an initial phase in bringing further relief to working Americans who, without being members of the wealthy elite, will still be spending too much of their money in taxation, and too much of their time conforming to our 9,500 page tax code!

A Big Price To Pay For Caribou Playground

David Shagoury, Published in The Bulletin Newspapers, January 14, 2001

Virtually every recession suffered in the modern era was at least partially prompted by energy problems.  Energy is the commodity that is most intricately woven throughout this economy, and consistent with the technological advances that are strewn within the every day lives of Americans, so intrinsic to the expanse of our freedoms.  Yet, even as we are finally in receipt of a substantive energy plan that focuses on responsible means to expand the energy supply produced by this resource rich country after eight years of no energy policy whatsoever (except benefiting from the actions of previous administrations), evangelicals of irrational gloom and self righteous indignation are determined to deny the American people access to their own wealth of energy.

As with other elements of the hard Left in the American body politic, the environmental extremists now predominate the national Democratic Party.  They provide important activist campaign support, and more importantly spend millions of dollars to defeat its more mainstream opponents.  Now they are committed to defeating all of the elements in the President’s proposal to help ensure a more consistent and less expensive supply of energy for the American people, and the quivering Democrat political leadership abandoned even the pretense of bipartisanship by declaring much of the Bush-Cheney Plan D.O.A. in the new Senate.  Why is there such vitriol from the Left when Americans have recently suffered from such high gasoline, home heating and electricity costs?

Of course the question is rhetorical.  Environmentalism began as an important and worthy movement to increase industry accountability, and the general consciousness in the defense of our air, water, land and animal life; its early leaders are certainly owed our praise.  However, as these activists themselves now define environmentalism, it has sadly degenerated into a movement that demands increasing control over the same and reserves the right to condemn those who disagree in McCarthyite terms.  Whereas, in its incipient stage, the primary motive of environmentalism was to protect people, now people seem ancillary as they attempt to impose their own strident and somewhat surreal morality upon the citizenry.

So, to these activists, it really is tertiary if a person’s freedom to travel is being curbed due to an in-balance of supply and demand in our energy sector.  In fact, these descendants of a once noble movement actually prefer that you pay as much as possible so that you can’t drive as frequently as you desire, can’t afford as man flights, and can’t heat or cool your home as desired; if it means that the environment could be even infinitesimally cleaner from your reduced prosperity and freedom.  So now, in a country that has erected a massive and prohibitive regulatory code that has stunted the domestic energy supply even as demand has risen substantially; a plan to access energy in a tiny footprint within a vast and barren Tundra is emotionally demonized.  Some advocates have literally suggested that utilizing this miniscule parcel is morally unacceptable because there has been occasion when caribou have mated in that exact area.  I believe our Democrat House Speaker Tom Finneran would rightly castigate that as reflective of the “loony left”.

Technological innovation deriving to a great extent from industry research and development now makes energy production and use much more environmentally friendly.  We need to pursue a progressive energy policy similar to what the Vice President outlined.  Cleaner coal processes should be a part of addressing our electricity deficiencies; and where would our region be without the Seabrook nuclear facility?  New technologies in nuclear energy production should significantly reduce the amount of waste it creates (France has a fully modernized nuclear industry which now accounts for 80% of its electricity).  Regulatory reform that revitalizes the construction of our energy infrastructure will greatly increase our capacity to deliver energy to the people and businesses so that Americans of modest means in particular will not be so vulnerable to cost spikes due to insufficient means to bring petroleum, gas and electricity to market.  Also, Congress should review the feasibility of encouraging a more unified gasoline formula standard so that energy is more fluid and transferable throughout the country.  Today, if Chicago is low on gasoline supply, sources in other states cannot be used to provide direct supply assistance because there are now so many different gasoline formulas that vary by state.  Of course, voluntary conservation should also be encouraged.

As a high tech, industrial, energy intensive economy in a cold weather climate, which also has many senior citizens on fixed incomes, Massachusetts would benefit more than most other states from a strong energy policy that stabilized costs by increasing capacity and supply.  But of course, our delegation in the House and Senate cling obdurately to their reactionary ideology and oppose outright the Bush-Cheney energy plan.  Do these politicians really believe that the level of economic growth over the last decade could have transpired with energy costs three times what they generally were?  Does someone really need to explain to Senator Kerry how millions more of his constituents will benefit from an expanded domestic oil supply than will travel to the Alaska Tundra and benefit from visiting the marginal portion of its designated for exploration?  Modest scrutiny would expose these politicians in the compassion industry who seemingly are less concerned about a stable and in-expensive supply of usable energy products than with capitulating to a narrow political interest.  Ah, but what does a nation gain, when it angers a few amorous caribou?