Connect with us

Opinion

Sixth’s Goodlatte lauds Trump tax plan – but what is the truth?

Published

on

Shortly before the unexpected announcement he won’t seek re-election two days after the Democrat’s sweeping electoral victories in Virginia, I read U.S. Sixth District Delegate Robert Goodlatte’s glowing appraisal of the Trump-House Republican tax plan.  In his “Legislative Update” our delegate painted so rosy a picture of the plan I was prompted to explore exactly what has been laid on the national table as tax reform by the Trump Administration and House Republicans.

I will use our now lame-duck Sixth District delegate’s appraisal as a starting point for that tax bill exploration:

The Sixth’s Bob Goodlatte at work – Pubic Domain Photos/Graphics

“After many months of work and discussion, I am encouraged by the introduction of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.  At its very core this bill is about tax relief for American families.  It nearly doubles the standard deduction to protect more of your hard-earned money, and lowers individual tax rates for low and middle income Americans,” Goodlatte began rosily, adding, “The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will also help to bolster the growth of businesses of all sizes in the United States, and keep jobs in our communities instead of being shipped overseas.”

Well that all sounds GREAT – unless on that latter point the reason jobs will be kept home is that American workers are in the process of being reduced to a Third World labor force as far as wages and benefits are concerned; and as far as the first point – well, what if at best it’s partisan hyperbole, and at worst just NOT TRUE?!!?

Multiple media outlets across the country had a far different assessment after a first look at the November 2 Trump-House Ways & Means Committee roll out of the long ballyhooed tax reform plan.  One even called it the groundwork for a new “Gilded Age” for America’s super rich.  Some of those national reports led me to the analysis of an independent, non-partisan, non-profit tax watchdog group founded in 1980.

Independent analysis

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) estimates more than two-thirds (66%) of the proposed tax cuts would go to the richest one-percent (1%) of Americans.  In all, ITEP estimates the Trump tax plan would give more than $100 billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest one-percent of Americans.  People who earn at least $615,800 a year would enjoy an average tax cut of $90,610.

“Meanwhile, those who earn between $41,000 and $66,000 a year would see an average tax cut ranging from about $400 according to ITEP estimates, to $1,100 according to the Trump/House plan’s own estimates,” Truthout’s Lindsay Koshgarian reported.

And despite that “average” middle income savings, ITEP and other sources report some taxpayers in the middle income bracket would actually end up owing more taxes under the plan.  According to the Reuters news agency, those other sources include administration officials – “Trump economic adviser Gary Cohn and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have also acknowledged that some people could see a tax hike” from the “tax cut” plan.

But HEY, what does a 37-year-old non-partisan tax watchdog group, or administration officials for that matter, know anyway?

I decided to take a look at a fairly independent Republican, not part of development of the plan at the House level, for another perspective.  Prior to being laid up after a neighborhood lawn mowing dispute, Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul asked if the plan “was really Republican?”

Senator Rand Paul may be preparing to catch whatever is flying out of the House Ways & Means Committee regarding tax ‘reform’.

“This is a GOP tax plan?  Possibly 30 percent of middle class gets a tax hike?  I hope the final details are better than this,” Rand tweeted in response to the unveiling of the plan in the House Ways & Means Committee.

So we must ask, tax reform for those who really need it the most – the middle and lower working classes – or an early Christmas present for those who need it least; but would have you believe (with some delegates’ assistance) that when they’re not taxed on their millions and billions, it’s really everyone else (trickle, trickle) who is benefiting?

‘See how easy it’s going to be to file taxes now’ the president enthused at tax plan’s unveiling. An amused House Speaker Paul Ryan and House Ways & Means Committee Chair Kevin Brady yuk it up at the president’s slight of hand.

On Wall Street

I decided to try Wall Street and the conservative Wall Street Journal for reactions sure to trumpet the Trump tax plan as a BIG boon to the U.S. economy.  But it seems that almost immediately Trump was tweeting that the Wall Street Journal just “doesn’t get it” as far as the plan’s positive impact on the economy.

While lauding the plan’s reduction of business taxes, the WSJ wrote that pro-growth aspect of the plan was “marred by a mess on individual taxes that makes that part of the code even worse than it is now.”

CBS’s Moneywatch reported a Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget analysis that estimates the plan’s “cuts will be worth a total of $5.8 trillion through 2027 while the tax increases will be worth $3.6 trillion. That would result in a net increase to the national debt of $2.7 trillion including interest” – with no stated plan on how that revenue gap will be filled.

But perhaps there is a plan – just a currently unstated one first verbalized by Republican strategist Grover Norquist some time ago – “We don’t want to destroy the federal government, we just want to shrink it to the size where it can be drowned in a bathtub.”

Way off Wall Street

Okay, let’s get off Wall Street and away from Republican ghosts – Greg Gardner of the Detroit Free Press noted the Trump-Republican tax plan includes elimination of a $7,500 tax credit applied to the purchase of hybrid and electric cars.  Gardner observed, “Wiping out the credit would create another obstacle for automakers who are trying to nurture a market for battery-powered transportation” for automobiles ranging around $37,000 to $40,000 or so.

Hey, gotta keep old Secretary of State and former Exxon-Mobile CEO Rex Tillerson happy – even if he has not denied calling you a “(some such) moron”.

But if the plan strips economic incentives to promote development of alternative, less polluting means of motor transportation, it also lowers the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent and repeals the estate tax – not things of major concern to middle or lower income Americans.

Interviewed by the ABC affiliate TV-3 in Harrisburg, PA, CPA Robert Wilson concluded that the reduction of tax brackets (from 7 to 4) “just results in people in the lower brackets paying more tax.”

Oh well, so much for the “little people” Mr. Goodlatte and pals have promised will benefit from the plan.

Above, proposed changes for single filers; below, for joint filing

Local government impacts

A story in the journal Governing: The States and Localities analyzed a potential impact on municipal governments nationwide:

“The bill would eliminate all private activity bonds, which allow tax-exempt municipal bonds to be issued on behalf of a government for a project built and paid for by a private developer … The proposal caught the infrastructure finance community completely off-guard … ‘For months, we’ve been hearing that munis were safe,’ said tax attorney Will Milford, of the firm Bryant, Miller, Olive.”

Why the alarm?

“Tax-exempt bonds fetch lower interest rates in the municipal market and therefore lower the overall cost of financing,” Governing explains, “The projects financed with this type of debt are typically things in the public interest, such as low-income housing, hospitals, airports” – and schools they might have added.

Governing called elimination of the low-interest bonds “devastating for governments trying to find money for economic development projects.”

Local government reactions

Such low interest bonds have been an important tool of local municipal capital improvement projects in Warren County for some years.

“The issue here is really about the ability to refinance bonds when the interest rates come down,” County Administrator Doug Stanley told us, observing, “The Board of Supervisors has been able to save a significant amount of money in past few years when we were able to refinance bonds associated with school construction.”

Long-time Warren County project consultant Springsted circulated a call to action in opposition to the plan forwarded to us by Stanley, “In addition to a dramatic cut in the corporate tax rate, the recently announced House tax bill takes serious, direct aim at the municipal bond market.  Both measures are sure to interfere with state and local governments’ ability to cost-effectively provide financing for projects,” Springsted wrote.

EDA Executive Director Jennifer McDonald also alerted us to the fact that one national organization, The Council of Development Finance Agencies (CDFA) will discuss strategies to fight this provision of the tax plan at its upcoming National Summit in Atlanta.  The CDFA called this aspect of the Trump-Republican tax bill “a move that would prove devastating to development finance efforts nationally.”

McDonald agreed, telling us, “Some of the proposed tax cuts and job acts could be detrimental to the economic development of not just this community, but the nation as a whole.  Economic development relies on some of these very successful programs to create jobs and tax revenue for the community.”

Noting the tax bill “is the product of months of collaboration between senior members of the House, Senate, and White House” the CDFA said that “without major pushback and input there is a good chance the bill may become law.”

So it seems that like some middle-income Americans, the communities they live in may also be negatively impacted by the Trump-House Republican tax plan as presented after months of partisan development behind closed doors.

Back to Bob

But maybe there’s hope! After all, the ever-elusive Mr. Goodlatte concluded his “Legislative Update” initial praising of the tax plan rolled out under his nose by stating, “As the Ways and Means Committee prepares to consider this bill next week, I will carefully examine the details of the plan and how they will impact the Sixth District.  I’ve advocated for common sense tax reform throughout my time in Congress, and I am pleased to see this effort move forward to deliver the tax relief folks in Virginia and across the country need. Let’s get down to business.”

I know I, for one, believe our Sixth District delegate when he says he’s getting ready to roll up those legislative sleeves and do some in-depth, non-partisan analysis of a Trump-Republican initiative that has been talked up for months as economic Nirvana for all.

NO I don’t. – But you knew that, didn’t you?

D-I-V-O-R-C-E

Okay, maybe I need a divorce from my Sixth District delegate – let’s just call it quits, Bob.  After all, political representation is a lot like a marriage in its give and take and mutual responsibility, right?  And I never see you anymore, Bob – at least not out here in the northwestern reaches of your district (or other districts too I hear from the “kids”).

Uh oh, not so fast.

‘Train in Vain’ – two days after Democrats stunning electoral gains in Virginia, Bob Goodlatte announced he is headed on down the tracks – but will he maintain support for the Trump-Republican House tax plan prior to his departure after the 2018 mid-term election?

Other than the fact I woke up today to find an “I’m leaving – soon” note from my delegate, Market Watch’s Quentin Fottrell writes, “There’s no longer a silver lining to paying spousal support.  President Trump’s tax plan unveiled this week will abolish tax deductions on alimony.  This won’t impact people who have already agreed on their payment amounts but – assuming the GOP tax bill is passed by Congress – this new arrangement will be in effect for divorce decrees on Jan. 1, 2018 and thereafter.

“This will create a total re-evaluation of divorce cases,” said Malcolm Taub, partner and co-chair of the divorce and family law practice group at Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP. “It’s major.”

“We settled a case this week in court where my wealthy client agreed to pay his dependent wife significant alimony because he could deduct it,” added Randy Kessler, an Atlanta-based lawyer who wrote the book, Divorce: Protect Yourself, Your Kids, and Your Future.  “The deduction, as it stands, is a great motivator to encourage the higher wage earner to agree to help support the spouse with less income.”

Uh oh, you don’t think THAT’S what this whole tax “reform” charade is about, do you? – Melania, Melania, has anyone seen Melania since China?!!?

Public Domain Photo/theeconomiccollapse-blog.com

Opinion

Celebrating the Essential Role of School Libraries and Teacher-Librarians in Our Community

Published

on

This past year, we’ve heard about libraries being battlegrounds. In Virginia alone, books have been removed from the shelves of public schools in Hanover County, Rockingham County, and Spotsylvania County, and our very own Samuels Public Library was in the national spotlight over the summer when its refusal to bend to book-banning efforts temporarily put its funding in jeopardy. The conversation about libraries has been serious, anxious, and urgent – all understandably so. But as we observe School Library Month, let’s pause to celebrate these libraries as safe spaces, vibrant hubs of knowledge and innovation, and champions of literacy, diversity, and inclusivity.

In our county’s school libraries, students from Pre-K through Grade 12 have opportunities to engage with literature, learn how to find and use information, experience the challenges and rewards of creating and sharing knowledge, and develop important digital and technological skills. Our county’s school librarians share the same passion for education as our wonderful, dedicated teachers – because they, too, are teachers, and our librarians play a significant role in their school communities by making connections with students and supporting their personal and academic growth. School librarians in Virginia are also uniquely qualified to promote student literacy because, in addition to their training in education, they are also educated in library science to prepare for the momentous task of providing students access to information by selecting materials using informed criteria.

School librarians tie shoelaces, wipe tears (and snot!), remember students’ interests and get excited about finding them “just the right book,” offer a respite from the chaos of the school day, and always challenge students to learn more, about themselves, about others, about the world they live in and their place in it. It’s joyful to be a school librarian, and as a current student tackling the training required to take on this responsibility, I’m thrilled to experience that joy for myself in the near future. But it’s also an unsettling time to work in this field, when school librarians across the country are losing their jobs, and many of those who are able and willing to stay in their positions have found their agency and roles severely limited due to suspicion and fear surrounding libraries, books, and information.

This April, instead of debating the merits of books and questioning the intelligence and motivations of educators who have dedicated their professional and often personal lives to librarianship, let’s commit ourselves to supporting and investing in Virginia’s school libraries. Let’s celebrate their vital role in shaping the next generation of lifelong learners. Let’s do everything we can to ensure that today’s and tomorrow’s students have access to the transformative power of literacy. Our school libraries have the potential to enhance the future of our community dramatically. Let’s not stand in their way.

Lydia Buhl
Linden, Va.

(Darden College of Education & Professional Studies, Old Dominion University

LIBS 676: Library Media Services and the Curriculum, Professor Cynthia Stogdill)


Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The Royal Examiner has not independently verified the statements and claims presented in the letters. Readers are encouraged to exercise their judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.

While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish diverse opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions based on these opinions.

In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or any other form.

We value our readers’ engagement and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violations of any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Presidential Competence in an Age of Instantaneous Interaction and Decisiveness

Published

on

A bombshell was dropped last month when Department of Justice Special Counsel Robert Hur released his findings on President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents. The good news for Biden was Hur does not plan to bring charges. However, the bad news was that even though Hur concluded that Biden was actually guilty, no jury would convict him because Biden is too old and has, “limited precision and recall.” Hur’s ultimate conclusion was that Biden is “a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.” The statements—though probably politically motivated—are damning to the president because to many they only confirm what they already suspect: Biden is too old and will never make four more years.

Age has always been a concern for presidential elections. It was one of the biggest issues facing Ronald Reagan when he ran for president at age 73. Yet that is now seeming young compared to the two presumptive candidates with Trump at age 77 and Biden at 81.

With Biden, between the reports and what seems like mental slips in the last few years, voters have wondered what happens if the president becomes mentally unable to fulfill his duties. Historically speaking, it would not be the first time a president was mentally incapacitated, only the first time it happened that the public never knew.

In 1912 the very progressive ex-governor of New Jersey, Woodrow Wilson was elected President of the United States as a Democrat, only the second since James Buchanan’s 1856 election. As a progressive, he shaped the direction of the nation including instituting income tax, direct election of senators and women’s suffrage. While in office, arguably Wilson’s two biggest events were personally the marriage to his second wife Edith Galt Wilson in 1915, and internationally the beginning of WWI in 1914. Wilson used American neutrality in the war as his campaign slogan, “Vote for Wilson! He kept us out of war,” when he ran for reelection in 1916. Yet it was only about a year later that America sided with the Allies and started shipping soldiers off to France.

Historians debate whether Wilson intended all along to enter the war. Those who believe he always planned on fighting do not believe his progressive nature would allow him to stay out of a fight that had such important outcomes. The war changed the map of Europe and toppled four major empires. Wilson knew the only way he would have a seat at the table after the war was as a fighting participate. Wilson, who held a Ph.D. in history and government from Johns Hopkins University and had served as president of Princeton University, was so confident he could solve all the worlds issues he showed up at the negotiating table with his Thirteen Points and expected to dominate the meeting. While Wilson did not get all his points into the Treaty of Versailles, he did get his most desired point: establishing the League of Nations, an international body that could solve future problems before they escalated into war.

The problem for Wilson was the Republican congress back home. Knowing the treaty needed congressional ratification, Wilson should have consulted with key Republicans on the treaty, but he was not that kind of president. When he presented the treaty to the Senate it was rejected, especially the League of Nations.

However, instead of compromising with Republican senators, Wilson took his cause to the people. He believed that the people would rally to his cause and force the Senate to accept the League. For months Wilson rode a train around the nation giving whistlestop speeches to any crowd that would listen. However, in October, overworked and physically exhausted, the president suffered from a stroke that left him paralyzed and mentally impaired.

Instead of reporting the stroke, Edith and a small group decided to cover it up and tell the American people he was suffering from exhaustion. While the government continued to function normally Edith began making the executive decisions, including meeting with cabinet members and foreign dignitaries. When Republicans demanded an audience, Edith pulled a scene straight out of Weekend at Bernie’s, where she dressed Wilson up, put his bed in the shadows with his paralyzed side to the wall. Wilson was able to pull it off with enough ability to carry a very short conversation to appease his detractors. Edith pulled off the act for over a year, knowing that, if discovered, the League of Nations would be doomed. In the end, it did not matter as the Republicans voted down American membership in the League, killing it before it even got started. As for Wilson, Edith was able to keep his secret until President Warren G. Harding was inaugurated.

I’m not sure if Jill Biden would be up to the task like Edith Wilson, but fortunately, if something were to happen to the president there are now laws in place. After the death of President John F. Kennedy, Congress pushed through the 25th Amendment that set up the line of accession to the presidency. In Section Four it states, “Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.”

This section allowed for the president to be replaced if he is no longer able to perform his executive duties. While so far this amendment has only been used temporarily, mostly for colonoscopies, there are many who believe it might be enacted for the first time no matter which elderly statesman holds the office.

James Finck is a professor of history at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma. He may be reached at HistoricallySpeaking1776@gmail.com.

Continue Reading

Opinion

History of American Political Parties, Part X: The Gilded Age

Published

on

For many, the Gilded Age (1877-1900) is the most boring part of political history. All the presidents were bearded white men from New York or Ohio who are hard to distinguish. In fact, it was just as hard to differentiate between Republicans and Democrats, being that neither really did very much.

Elections were always exciting as the contests were very close and because there was still no secret ballot, both parties did everything they could to influence voters including massive picnics with great deals of alcohol. Elections were such a celebration that voter turnout was around 80%. Once the secret ballot was instituted and politicians could no longer control the votes, voting rates dropped down into the 40s in the next century.

It’s surprising how large voter turnout was in the Gilded Age considering the lack of differences between the two parties. Republicans remained the classic conservatives of positive government, which simply meant they just did a little more. If we look at the government’s role based on the Preamble to the Constitution, then it has three jobs: ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense and promote the general Welfare. For domestic tranquility the main job the government did was use the army to break up strikes, really nothing else. For common defense, it did maintain a small army. But up to that point, America had never believed a democracy should maintain a standing army, that would only allow for tyranny. When an army was required, the people should filled its ranks. (Think Second Amendment.) America will not maintain a standing army until the Cold War (1947-1991). As for general welfare, the government promoted economic growth through tariffs, but that was very controversial. The government also sold cheap land in the West to bring in some income. There was no concept of any type of safety net, but the largest government expenditure was Union soldier pensions after the Civil War.

As for parties, Republicans looked closer to today’s liberals than conservatives. They were the party of big government; their constituency was comprised of businessmen because the party pushed for economic growth and protective tariffs to help American businesses. Black Americans, when they could vote, overwhelmingly voted Republican because it was the party of Lincoln and emancipation. Strong Protestants supported the party because they pushed for moral reforms like outlawing alcohol and gambling. Finally, Union soldiers voted Republican because of the pensions.

As for Democrats, they were the reverse and more closely resemble today’s Republican Party. They believed the best form of government is one that governs the least. This philosophy drew support from white Southerners who wanted the least government interference possible. It also drew support from Northern immigrants in the cities. Most of these were Catholics who believed it was the Church’s job to regulate morality, not the government.

The biggest issue for Democrats was that they were the party of white supremacy. This was not something they shied away from, but they openly supported segregation, Jim Crow laws and ending Reconstruction (the era between 1865 and 1877 where the government abolished slavery, reintegrated once-seceded states and rebuilding the South after the Civil War).

Even though elections were always close, Republicans dominated during Reconstruction and the Gilded Age. After Republican Ulysses S. Grant completed his presidency, another Republican, Rutherford B. Hayes, from Ohio, won in 1876. James Garfield, Republican from Ohio, was elected in 1880. Garfield was assassinated and was replaced by New York Republican Chester Arthur. A Democrat did win in 1884 with Grover Cleveland from New York, but Cleveland lost reelection in 1884 to Republican Benjamin Harrison from Ohio. In 1892, Cleveland came back and won making him the only two-term, nonconsecutive U.S. president. Finally Ohio Republican William McKinley won the presidency in 1896.

This last election of the Gilded Age was held in 1896. Officially part of the Gilded Age, it is my third favorite election and is a game-changer in American politics. In a Hail Mary attempt, Democrats completely changed their political ideology which guided them down the long road towards being the liberal party that they are today.

In the future, this series will resume with the 20th century and how the modern-day Republicans and Democrats came into being.

James Finck is a professor of history at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma. He may be reached at HistoricallySpeaking1776@gmail.com.

Continue Reading

Opinion

EDA Treasurer Urges Strategic Reflection on County Economic Choices

Published

on

I serve as the treasurer of the Front Royal-Warren County EDA. I’ve received a number of calls and questions about our recent discussion at the EDA about the house at 158 Faith Way, where Jennifer McDonald and her husband Sammy North have lived. This property was previously forfeited by Ms. McDonald and Mr. North, but they have filed suit to prevent eviction, and then followed up with a cash offer to settle that suit.

While I have no particular dogs in this fight – I voted against any settlement with Ms. McDonald or Mr. North, and will continue to do so – I believe it is important to clarify some financial information, and to correct some clear mistakes in the public record. In financial decisions details matter, and here the case is detailed, complex, and nuanced. Our elected public officials don’t seem to “do nuance” very well.

The settlement proposed with Ms. McDonald et al was, in fact, a good financial outcome for the County. Mr. North has sued the EDA in order to retain the property. This litigation will cost a minimum of ten to twenty thousand dollars, and possibly much more. The proposed action was not a sale, it was an effort to settle yet another lawsuit, and receive cash in the process.

Failing to settle the lawsuit over 158 Faith Way will cost the county more than $175,000 according to our best estimates. This is because of two details: the property has attached liens which must be deducted from a sale; and any proceeds from a sale must be split with First Bank and Trust, according to a separate legal agreement with the bank. And then there are those out-of-pocket legal costs. The EDA’s initial vote to settle the lawsuit, rather than additional (and seemingly endless) expensive litigation was made in good faith, and for the single purpose of getting more money for the taxpayers of Warren County. (And yes, I am defending the decision, even though I do not ultimately agree with it.)

The Board of Supervisors had clearly indicated to the EDA board that no more funding will be available for litigation. Similarly, we have been assured that no funding will be available for hiring a private investigator, or accountants, to pursue other assets that may be recoverable from the guilty parties. It is important to note here that in every legal proceeding the EDA has prevailed, and has recovered significant monies. But recoveries will never be enough to replace the stolen funds and cover the legal expenses.

Even after the criminal sentencing of McDonald and the conclusion of all related litigation, a larger issue will still overshadow the case, possibly for years to come.

More than $20 million was stolen from the County. Another $9 million (and change) was spent on legal fees to both find, and recover, the losses. And yet, in recent years, the Warren County Board of Supervisors has reacted by actually cutting the county’s budget. In fear of being accused of “raising taxes,” the political leadership of our community has looked the other way.

If thieves stole your entire month’s pay from your personal bank account, would you just stop paying your bills for the month? That’s the best analogy I can think of here.

A $29-million hole has been blown through our public budgets, and has not been replaced. Additional recoveries from the guilty are possible – but the decision-makers stopped paying for forensic accounting, and have said they will stop paying for litigation. So more recoveries are unlikely. Even more damning, it’s highly likely that several former public officials were either involved in McDonald’s schemes or knew of those who were. However, federal authorities have stated that they will not pursue any further prosecutions.

It is an unfortunate reality, but taxes must be raised, and I applaud the supervisors for moving in that direction. Past cuts to taxes during a period of nearly 7% annual inflation were a mistake, even before accounting for our extraordinary losses due to theft. Our community needs to learn to grapple with the ongoing, complex realities of the McDonald case.  Elected leadership must take on the challenging task of communicating hard and necessary – and unpopular – decisions to the public. The elected leadership of Warren County has struggled to understand and listen to sound advice, and take actions accordingly. The Board of Supervisors has a history of decisions that have not been in the long-term best interests of the citizens of the community, nor the economic health and vitality of the county. The blind obedience to the mantra of “no increased taxes” harms the long-term growth, vitality, and stability of our county in terms of the quality of our public schools, teacher retention, emergency services, social services from the youngest to the oldest of our citizens, and the work itself of economic development.

I want to repeat my point that financial matters are complex, and must be given better consideration than a quick public statement or a posting on Facebook. In the future, please dig deeper. I trust that each supervisor now understands, and will publicly admit, that they are in favor of spending that added $175,000 to deny any settlement with McDonald or North. I know I am, and I will continue to trade off this relatively small amount of cash for what I consider to be justice for our community.

In my view, there are things much more valuable than money. I personally opposed any settlement with McDonald, and I voted that way. Justice, integrity, and retribution are all more valuable than settling for what amounts to less than 3% of the total that McDonald owes the people of Warren County. Hopefully her upcoming criminal sentencing will begin to claw back some of that integrity. And on the financial side, our public officials will need to work to do the same.

Jim Wolfe
Front Royal, Va.
Treasurer, Warren County Front Royal EDA
Associate Professor of Management, George Mason University


Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The Royal Examiner has not independently verified the statements and claims presented in the letters. Readers are encouraged to exercise their judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.

While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish diverse opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions based on these opinions.

When authors submit a letter to the editor, they grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.

We value our readers’ engagement and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violations of any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Deliberating the Constitutionality of Presidential Ballot Restrictions

Published

on

An amendment meant to keep ex-Confederates from holding office after the Civil War is once again coming into play as Colorado and Maine announced that former President Donald Trump will not appear on the ballot of their upcoming presidential primaries.

The 14th Amendment, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states, “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

Setting aside any feelings about Trump and simply looking at this legally, personally, I do not understand how someone not convicted of insurrection can be disqualified in the name of democracy. However, I will leave that argument to legal scholars and instead try to correct a popular online statement that Democrats have done this before with Abraham Lincoln in 1860. While it is true Lincoln was not on any ballots in the South, it’s not because of Democrats’ interference but because there was no official ballot in 1860.

During most of the 19th century, the government did not print official ballots. In fact, during the first several elections, nothing was written down at all. A voter came to the courthouse on voting day, swore on the Bible he was who he claimed he was (the first form of voter ID), and then announced his vote to the clerk who recorded it. Eventually voting turned to paper, but mostly written on scrap paper or ballots printed in newspapers, but the voting was still public knowledge. Being a public ballot allowed for political machines like Tammany Hall to form and control votes, especially from new immigrants. Eventually, parties began printing their own ballots already filled out and could pass them to their supporters. With most immigrants, a party representative met them on the docks and let them know that a job and lodging was prepared for them and all they had to do was vote for their man. Parties even color-coded their ballots to guarantee compliance at the open polls.

It was during this time that Lincoln ran for president in 1860. Since the government did not produce a ballot, there is no way it could have excluded Lincoln in the South. The exclusion actually came from Lincoln’s own party. Because the Republican Party had no foothold in the South, there were no Republicans to create or distribute a ballot.

The only slave states where Lincoln received any popular votes were along the border where the Party had some support: Delaware at 23%, Kentucky at .9%, Maryland at 2.4% and Missouri at 10.3%. As a side note, one major reason the Deep South seceded quickly after Lincoln’s victory was because he could begin to give out government jobs. The fear was Southerners might become Republicans simply for the lucrative positions and by the next election Republicans would have printed ballots.

After the Civil War, political machines continued to pressure voters with public ballots leading to calls for reform. Finally in the 1880s, states began going with the Australian System where the government printed ballots and voters submitted them in secret in an attempt to stop the corruption. It was about this time that voter turnout dropped from around 80% to 40%. With the open ballot, parties did what they could to get voters to the polls knowing they could control them. Once they lost control, parties no longer made sure everyone showed up.

If looking for a better example to fit the current situation, look no further than Eugene Debs in the 1920 Election. Debs had run for president four times as a Socialist Party candidate. This fifth time was different as he was serving a ten-year stint in prison for violating the Sedition Act. In 1918, during World War I, President Woodrow Wilson pushed through the Sedition Act making it illegal to criticize the government or the war. That same year Debs gave a speech criticizing both which landed him in jail. His sentence only grew his support and in 1920 the Socialist Party nominated “Convict 2253” for president.  Even while serving time for attacking the nation, Debs was allowed on the ballot. Probably the biggest difference is Debs only polled 3.4% of popular votes, whereas if Trump is allowed to run, he might possibly win.

We are walking in uncharted territory with Trump’s primary ban. While the 14th Amendment does not require a criminal conviction, this could set a dangerous precedent. Even when Debs was convicted, he was allowed to run. Fortunately, the Supreme Court decided to take up the case.

James Finck is a professor of history at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma. He may be reached at HistoricallySpeaking1776@gmail.com.

Editor’s Note: The Supreme Court’s succinct ruling made it clear: under the Constitution’s “insurrectionist ban,” states lack the authority to disqualify a federal candidate from the ballot. The Court emphasized that this responsibility lies with Congress, not the states. Consequently, the implications of this decision extend well beyond the initial dispute in Colorado, indicating its broad impact.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Reviving Cursive Writing: Unlocking History and Opportunities for Future Generations

Published

on

Following up on the Royal Examiner article on the resurgence of teaching cursive handwriting in schools, it’s a good thing for a number of reasons.

I’ve been involved in historical research for more than 60 years. I’ve brought to the attention of several school boards here in Virginia that the decision to eliminate cursive handwriting in schools constituted a serious travesty being foisted on thousands of students around the country. Besides the obvious impact on young people and their ability to conduct family genealogical research
and develop an accurate family tree, the more serious result will be thousands of occupations beyond the reach of anyone who cannot read and write cursive.

Imagine a class trip to the National Archives in Washington, where the students are unable to look at and read the beautiful handwriting and words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. To these kids, they might just as well be trying to read Egyptian hieroglyphics. Signing contracts, having documents notarised, and applying for government permits (driver’s licenses, passports, &, etc.) all are out of reach of those unable to read & write cursive and sign their signature. True, a person unable to write a signature on an official application or document can print an ”X” for a signature. Still, a witness is required to verify the ”X”. Printing a “signature” on such a document is not permitted without a verifying witness.

Schools should be encouraged to return to teaching students to read and write cursive. This would put a multitude of occupations within the reach of young people when they finish school and give them the tools to be well-rounded and capable individuals.

Arthur Candenquist 
Amissville, VA

Continue Reading
Verified by ExactMetrics