Letter: Chesher Disputes Euell’s ‘Facts’

Two years ago, the University of Maryland released a study showing that Fox News watchers were less informed than people who watch no television news at all. A recent study from Fairleigh Dickinson University backs the University of Maryland’s findings.

I don’t know if Thomas Euell watches Fox News, but his skewed information seems to indicate that he just might be a Fox fan.

I have a few corrections to make to his most recent letter (“Thomas Euell Responds,” Dec. 7). The first misleading statement in his letter is regarding U.S. (federal lands) oil production under the Obama administration, in which he says the administration cut oil production by 50 percent. According to CNN Factcheck, “Oil production on federal and Indian lands from 2009 through 2011 totaled 2.027 million barrels. That’s an average of 675,000 barrels per year during Obama’s term, compared to an average annual production of 609,000 barrels annually during Bush’s last term.”

Next, according to Politifact, Romneycare and Obamacare are the “same thing.” Neither one is “universal healthcare.” Private insurance companies still insure their customers and still make large profits, and “Medicaid” is still a safety net program that tax dollars support in Massachusetts and throughout the United States.

As for the “Barack Obama: Big Spender” lie, please read the May 24 Forbes report, “Who is the Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It’s Barack Obama?” They even published an easy-to-understand chart, provided by the Congressional Budget Office, proving the point that President Obama is most definitely not the big spender who right-wing talkers claim he is.

Addressing the success of the Clinton administration, here are the facts: Clinton taxed the rich and created 23 million jobs and a record surplus. Bush cut taxes on the rich and lost 15 million jobs and created record debt.

Surprisingly, liberals agree with Mr. Euell on the issue of “entitlements.” However, it is the right-wingers like Marco Rubio who continue to label Social Security and Medicare as “entitlements.” We call them earned benefits, because we earned (paid into) them.

Today, unemployment rates dropped to 7.7 percent and housing starts and values are up. Corporate profits are at an all-time high, according to Business Insider, CNN and The Economist, so let’s stop with the fear mongering about the economy.

America has always been a fairly well-balanced combination of socialism and capitalism. Most liberals use and enjoy capitalism just like conservatives do. A major difference is that liberals aren’t terrified of government, social safety nets or that some scary group of people might take our “stuff” or our freedom or guns away from us.

Ironically, the red states are overwhelmingly the welfare queens. The states governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut are the states taking more federal money than they pay in federal taxes. “They talk a good game, but stick the blue states with the bill,” according to Business Insider.

I’m not sure what the reference to Greece is supposed to mean, but according to Nobel Prize–winning economist Paul Krugman, Greece’s insistence on “austerity” has only compounded its financial crisis. I don’t know if Greece’s prime minister watches Fox News, but it sounds like Greece could use some of President Obama’s economic advice.

Gwynne Chesher


  1. The President has accomplished his goal of polarizing us and pigeon holing us into groups with parochial interests. In his world it is inconceivable that any of these groups could have the same goals and aspirations except when he is giving speeches. This is the most opaque Presidency in memory, and would not be so aggravating except for his lofty promises in 2008. Were it not for Fox News we would have dismissed Benghazi as a Petraeus sex scandal. The President stated and was backed up by Candy Crowley in the debate that the attack was a terrorist act. He left for Las Vegas to campaign the day after the attack and then sent Susan Rice out to say it was just a bunch of rambunctious protesters that got out of hand. It would not go over with the voters if it was demonstrated that Al Quaeda was not on the run until after the election. Why haven’t we learned anything from the Administration about the security preparation and the response during the attack? Why are the survivors sequestered from questioning by Congressional committees investigating? Why is Hillary Clinton silent? Why have we not seen the situation room the night of the attack like we did on the Bin Laden raid? Who ordered Clapper to change Petraeus’s report from planned terrorism to spontaneous demonstration? The President said he told whoever was in the room to do whatever was necessary to deal with the attack. You don’t just issue a statement into the ether to do something. Who was it and what was done? Our representatives will not back down from continuing the investigation

  2. Addressing the success of the Clinton administration, here are the facts: Clinton taxed the rich and created 23 million jobs and a record surplus. Bush cut taxes on the rich and lost 15 million jobs and created record debt

    Here are the real facts.

    Life is not fair. However in a search for a fair approach to taxation and what to do with the revenue, and the effect it has on the economy, I stumbled onto an overlooked concept by both parties. I hope it was overlooked and not purposely hidden from our consideration for political reasons. It has been stated in a continuum of justification for returning to the Clinton era tax rates for the successful when the country prospered and the economy flourished, that the wealthy need to pay their fair share. That millionaires and billionaires earning more than $250,000 should have the top tax rate increased to Clinton era levels. I chose 1996 and 2011 to compare tax rates since these would offer a fair comparison. These figures only represent the tax rates from the tax tables for married filing jointly and don’t take into consideration various credits for lower and middle income taxpayers which phase out for upper income taxpayers under the current tax code. Neither did I address capital gains which in addition to a reduction in credits to lower income taxpayers would provide additional revenue. This was done because the President’s line in the sand is an increase in the top tax rate with no room for negotiation on anything else including spending until the increase in the top rate is approved by Congress. I’ve chosen some random income levels to give a picture of what we were paying during the good times and what we are paying now as a result of “The Bush Tax Cuts For The Wealthiest of Individuals.” A mantra heard as much as “Al Quaeda is on the Run.”

    Income 1996Tax 2011Tax Difference

    $17,000 $2,550 $1,700 $850 33%
    40,000 6,060 5,150 910 15%
    75,000 15,794 11,006 4,788 30%
    100,000 22,880 17,250 5,630 25%
    200,000 56,495 44,069 12,426 22%
    300,000 93,800 76,454 17,346 18%
    1,000,000 371,000 319,872 51,128 14%

Comments are closed.