Tell Paul Moomjean he can quit bashing Obama and congressional Democrats. They will be bit players in the 2011-2012 U.S. tax and spending cycle.

In January, the Republican caucus will be the majority in the House of Representatives. That means Republicans will draft each and every tax and spending bill for the next two years, because all tax and spending bills must originate in the House. It’s a Constitutional requirement. Republicans won’t need a single Democratic vote to pass those bills out of the House either. There are no super-majorities needed for U.S. tax and spending bills. Nor is there any required time lag before their implementation.

• Don’t like the income tax? Introduce and pass a bill to abolish it, effective immediately.

• Prefer a flat-rate tax with no exemptions or deductions? Don’t talk about it; pass the bill.

• Labor unions are a drag on our economy? Repeal the Taft-Hartley Act and eliminate unions.

• Capital gains and corporate taxes are slowing the recovery? Abolish them also.

• Waste, fraud and abuse in government spending? Cancel funding of every offending individual.

• Don’t like Social Security? Cancel it.

• Don’t like welfare, or federal involvement in education? Ditto.

What a deal for the Republicans who now hold the key federal legislative card, drafting tax and spending proposals! No need to complain any more, just write and pass the laws you’ve been preaching. That’s going to be your job for the next two years. If Senate Democrats or the president refuse to go along, make that an issue in the 2012 election. But do pass the bill.

We’ll be watching as you put your campaign rhetoric into action. Because one thing’s for sure: If the USA is still running a deficit in 2012, or if the economy has not created jobs for all Americans, it will be your fault. You wanted the job of fixing the economy. Now fix it.

Rick Scott
Ventura

Kudos from SOS
I wanted to let you know that we appreciate so much that Shane Cohn took such an interest in our situation (“Quality may take a back seat for some T.O. seniors,” News, 11-11). I was so pleased with the article. He deserves so much praise for his ability and his kindness to us. I worked many years in management and wish I had had such an intelligent, dependable and caring employee. We have tried so hard to get the message out to the community, and Shane did this so beautifully for us. Thank you, VCReporter, and a huge THANKS to Shane.

Marilyn Aurand
Chairperson for Thunderbird Oaks-SOS (Save Our Seniors)

To the point!
I want to congratulate the Ventura County Reporter and you for Shane Cohn’s article (News, 11-11) on the large rent increase us seniors are facing at Thunderbird Oaks Mobile Home Park. The information was well researched, clear, concise, factual and to the point!

Karol Freed
Thunderbird Oaks Mobile Home Park
Thousand Oaks

The death of old-school conservative commentary
When I was a young guy, my dad never missed listening to William F. Buckley on the tube. Bill Buckley was well-educated, articulate, concise, and so was my dad.

Anyway, one day we were listening to Bill, and I just couldn’t take it anymore. “Dad,” I said, “Bill Buckley is a pretty impressive guy, but why are we listening to him? We’re Democrats!”

My dad’s reply was that Bill Buckley made his living, and a very good one at that, by articulating the conservative point of view, that he was successfully embraced by the conservative establishment simply because he was the best at what he did.

To my father, a liberal Democrat, a brilliant mathematician and a passionate historian, by the way, also a decorated combat veteran, Bill Buckley was a credible voice who not only articulated, but possibly even influenced the conservative mind set of his time.

I was never persuaded by Mr. Buckley’s brand of Ivy League conservative dogma, however, there was no doubt in my mind that he was to be respected and taken seriously. I would also add that I fondly recall the many Saturday afternoon conversations I shared with my dad, the result of Mr. Buckley’s concise, thoughtful commentary.

I learned much about the liberal and conservative points of view in those days, being exposed to such men as Buckley; and my dad was a great lesson in the art of argument, of sophistry, and an insightful look at the tools of the trade, the ability to think and speak in an organized and meaningful manner, which leads the argument toward an undeniable conclusion, an argument not intended to malign the opponent, but rather to influence the very thought process of the listener.

I recall this time gone by in response to a piece written by Mr. Paul Moonjean

“A new oxymoron,” the Right Persuasion – VC Reporter, dated 11-4.

It cannot be overlooked that Mr. Moomjean throws around insult upon accusation, in such a disorganized, off-handed manner that the article becomes analogous to sitting in a crowded room yelling fire. Who cares to address or analyze this rant? We are all too busy running for our lives, from the dreaded flames of liberalism. Where is Eugene McCarthy when you need him? By the way, if you like oxymorons, try Paul’s “Third Party – Independent.” So can we stop for one moment and just look at one small part of Paul’s rave?

And I quote. “The left is basically focused on four groups. The poor, minorities, women and the youth. Ironically, those are the same groups that lawyers, used-car salesmen and pyramid-scheme runners go after as well. Leftists look at the outside, whereas conservatives have a much more open tent.” End of quote.

Wow – I wonder, if I were a “rightist,” would I want this guy presenting his distorted concept of conservatism on my behalf? What happened to William F. Buckley? After all, the quote above virtually reduces the 1964 Civil Rights Act to a socialistic windfall for those unincorporated Americans hovering on the “outside” of Mr. Moomjean’s conservative tent.

In other words, Mr. Moomjean appears to be saying that what is left “inside” the tent should be our/your political priority. Lets see what’s left in there. Hmmm — not poor people; not women, sorry honey! Not minorities, sorry black, brown, yellow, red, and all religious minorities; not young people (I’d like to help ya son, but you’re too young to vote!) Nope, no young people!

So I put it to you, Paul – and I put it to you, the reader – Is the conservative tent limited only to white Christian males between the age of 25 and 80? Because according to Paul, those are the only people left inside.

Somehow, I don’t think this argument meets the journalistic standards set by William F. Buckley, way back when. Nor does it even begin to satisfy my need for the thoughtful, in-depth, political commentary that my father and I enjoyed on many Saturday afternoons, back when political commentary had something to say.

Matt Faust
Ventura

Making sense of the Right Persuasion
Nov. 4’s The Right Persuasion, entitled “A new Oxymoron: liberal tolerance”

After Paul begins by suggesting possible repressed feelings for his overbearing father, then recalls fond memories of sixth grade “American English” (perhaps that’s as far as it went), he continues: “If I could add one more word to that list today, it would be liberal tolerance.” That’s actually two words, Paul, “liberal” and “tolerance,” and combining two other words “congressional ethics,” “compassionate conservative” or “constructive conservative,” you would easily build far better examples of this ridiculous, confused and ironic theory of yours. However, by far the best example of a one-word oxymoron remains “conservative.”

Mr. Moomjean uses the remainder of his word count citing a few flimsy examples to support his misstatement.

Instantly, dozens of better, more extreme examples of conservative intolerance pop into my mind, but that converse train of thought is just as moronic and likewise serves no greater good. And, Paul, Rob Reiner enjoys freedom of speech as every American does and the Tea Party does not actually own the copyright to Hitler analogies, regardless of how often they’re used.

I “once again” challenge Mr. Moomjean to organize his “favorite words” to present helpful or constructive ideas about what the right might do better to better this country; his whiny rants are tiring and useless. But, as with passing a car wreck, I can’t help but read Paul’s lugubrious ravings. And as long as the VCReporter has chosen to “anti-market” its paper by printing such “objective opinion” with this sort of “journalistic integrity,” it’s receiving many more letters to the editor from me and like-minded readers trying to make sense of “the right persuasion.”

Chris Jensen
Ventura