Is it appropriate that Paul Zupich's discourse which takes liberties with the facts and appears independent of logic was published in the Voice on Independence Day? I would like to believe that Paul can't read or is just up to more debaters' tricks. I hope he is more capable of political and economic thought, and semantics, than appears.

In the context of discussing how the very richest are hurt comparatively less by relatively greater taxes, I pointed out that "...by Zupich's own figures, he and Bush would like to require less [than is now being required] of those very blessed and richest [and would like to require] a larger portion [of the taxes to be paid] by the rest of us although they [the very richest] have profited far beyond Midas' moderation."

Zupich can't deny my clear claim. But he would like to twist the plain meaning of my language in context [the context clarified in brackets above] to pretend that I was saying something so obviously wrong that no sensible person would maintain it. But what he pretended I said was so at odds with what I was saying that no fair minded person would try to trick others into believing I had meant what Paul pretended.

But just in case Paul really couldn't follow my logic, here is a parallel claim: If you cut tax rates of the richest 50% by 50% and those of the poorest 50% by 1%, the remaining taxes will require much less from the richest that they have been paying, and although the poorest will be paying a little less taxes, the "portion" of the total taxes being paid (that the poor are still paying) would go up astronomically.

That illustrates the logic of what I was saying independent of Paul's twisted claims about claims and facts that never existed. I trust Zupich will not have the audacity to argue that the conditional "facts" in my above example are inaccurate! They are clearly used only as a pedagogical tool to make it easier for him to follow the logic and semantics of my earlier claim.

With Paul's penchant for perfidy, to judge from his Chubby Checkerd articles, I won't be surprised if he tries to "twist again like he did last"...letter!

In defending his claim that people who do not owe taxes can not be given a tax break, Paul claims that we must call it a "handout, etc.." You decide if I taking liberties when I used Zupich's term, "tax break?"

If we tell a person that "...you deserve a break today," we usually mean a cessation, a pleasant reprieve or some positive development. At least Coke would like us to think so. Telling a person that the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and other provisions of the tax code not only relieve a person of burdensome taxes but may also provide money that exceeds what was withheld seems to me to give a guy a break today, some positive development (whether you like it or not)!

Name calling those tax breaks "handouts" is just using a pejorative connotation to serve Paul's perverted political purposes. Paul seems to want to say that those who receive such "refunds" do not deserve them since those "refunds" exceed the money they paid. But he doesn't dare engage in such substantive debate on that question. So he resorts to name calling instead.

I'm sorry I can't take Mr. Zupich seriously in this case of silly semantics since he and I are fully agreed on the facts: provisions of the tax code result in some people being sent what the IRS calls "refund checks" which exceed money that they sent to the U. S. Treasury. Some of us think that is good; others, like Zupich, disagree. We should debate the issue rather than try to decide it with name calling semantics!

Is there no end to Paul's debaters' trickery. Only lawyers should be so practiced at turning the plain meaning of the English language on its head. Repeatedly, his own character raises the question of Mr. Zupich's lack of credibility. I would prefer to believe Paul that just can't read. But he does seem habitually, as he did in his Paine article, to set up straw men to demolish while only pretending that they have something to do with his opponents' opinions or the questions at issue.

When I asked if Paul can see that there is something essentially unjust about any social organization and institutions that enable 1% of the people to make half the income in a country, I was not trying to quibble about statistics, whether they make 35 or 50%. I was asking about principles of right and wrong, questions Paul would apparently prefer to evade by raising red herrings and hares, hopping off on hunting expeditions, looking for some statistics to twist .

However, each year around 1% of all people (including their families, trusts, organizations and institutions, etc.) do, in fact, amass at least half the added wealth in our country from all sources, including organizations and institutions, not just from individuals who report to the IRS, even properly, untaxed, exempt and excluded income and increases in wealth.

Although the richest 1% of individuals (excluding their businesses, corporations, trusts, etc.) do not pay 35% of federal taxes, my point was not precisely how much they do or do not pay, it is generally how much they make in increased wealth each year, including money protected by tax loopholes, trusts and their business tax breaks, by which they and their families gain.

I will not bore readers with further refutations of Zupich's warping of my claims by his slight of tongue and of the facts by his slight statistics. Most everyone can see through his perfidy with no help from me. If anyone wants the whole story of Paul's penchant for twisting the truth, please write to me at edromar@hotmail.com for the rest of the refutation. Or visit my web site at "http://geocities.datacellar.net/chiefbullmoose".

However, one place where I am loathe to let Mr. Zupich's lies lie, is his claim that "Right wing and fascist are contradictory; fascism is left-wing." Franklin D. Roosevelt, who led our last fight against fascism, should have known the difference. He said:

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in essence, is fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling power."

In my A Bull Moose in the Age of Aquarius: An Old Conscience for New Conservatives, I pointed out that fascism in whatever guise, the Nazies or National Socialism, a theocratic, aristocratic, plutocratic, or oligarchical state, all believe that the average Joe exists for the good of the state and its masters, the king, the rich, the official church and/or its God, the race, folk, party or Nation.

To fascists of all forms, ordinary people exist for the good of the state and are the workers and cannon fodder who serve the state, whether the state serves the right wing Aristocrats or Oligarchs, who run the state for their own advantage, or the theocrats who see men as the fodder for their Gods according to the dictates of their delusions.

For all forms of progressives, on the other hand, the state exists for the good of and serves the ordinary people at their behest to enforce the social compact based on equality. In the true left, the state serves the people and is put there by the people for the good of the people, not vice versa.

True, the facts were confused by the Nazis' attempt to appeal to socialists by miscalling their creed "National Socialism," and by the Communists' creation of a fascist state supposedly to make way for some future true communism that would miraculously develop. But the new rulers were just substitutes for the old, there being no real change in the relationship of the ordinary Joe to the state he served. The only difference was in the czar he served.

Whether it was the right wing, conservative Federal Party's perversion of power for the rich that led it to its demise in the early 1800s, or the right wing, conservative, Aristocratic planters of the Confederacy whose subjection of their states to their will and weal that led them to sacrifice all to maintain a society designed to support their own wealth and status by lording it over slaves and the average man, it has always been the reactionary right wing that spawned fascism. Look to the Allotolah in Iran! None of those perversions of the people's power were raised by the true left!

To my charge that Bush ignores the basic principle of community, that we all share the pain of maintaining our social institutions equally, Paul Zupich does not deny the principle. Instead he ignores the issue by saying that some "Joint Committee on Taxation" claims that "...the bottom 43% contribute nothing...to support our government but receive the benefit of government services".

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. The percentage (whether 10% or 50%) who "pay" nothing to support our government (although they still "contribute" to it greatly) include the 5% unemployed, about 20% children and nearly 20% retired, elderly, indigent, and the unemployable in hospitals and institutions. But rather than pick at Paul's perfidious points, I'll merely slice the scab to its calloused heart:

Don't blame the poor. They would much prefer a $10 minimum wage, full health and retirement benefits, their health and full employment. The way the Fat Cats have things arranged, many workers get up to half what it costs for them to live and work paid through essential government services and tax credits, etc..

Without there being many government benefits (that are really part of corporate welfare in disguise), the big businesses and corporations would have to pay a real living wage in order to have workers. Maintaining government services relieves the corporations and big businesses of much of what would be the actual costs of paying workers a real living wage.

Having such government services and institutionally supported unemployment doesn't cost corporations and businesses greater tax liabilities, since those are exempted business expenses and society's liabilities. Having them leaves much more profits thanwould be left over if they paid a real living wage. The rest of us pay the difference in our taxes. The rich know that the people will blame the fact that there must be such services on the under-paid poor.

By maintaining a margin of unemployment, our government counteracts the tendency of wages to rise in a fully employed economy, gaining immense wealth for the owners of industry. Again it is the people who do not contribute taxes who pay the highest price for our current government!

Mr. Zupich either did not perceive or appreciate my parody of Lincoln's claim that a nation can not survive half slave and half free. I suppose Paul would have quibbled with Abe that less than a quarter of the people were slaves in Lincoln's time. Paul would have pled that Abe was exaggerating rather than have faced the question of principle Lincoln raised: Can this continue?

Again, we could quibble over whether half or only 13% of the people are poor, as poor mouthed by Paul's supposed "Institute for Research on Poverty" and defined in some way for the sake of argument. For example, why does the IRP estimate ignore the nearly 5% incarcerated in consequence of the war on drugs, etc.? Are they really "gainfully employed"?

But for the sake of living we need merely look at the real cost of living. In fact, the real cost of living, were not much of it made up for by government services that Mr. Zupich seemingly only grudgingly allows, would put most Americans in the "poor house" figuratively (read "class"). The actual cost of living would put most people in the poor house literally if all their debts were called in and society still maintained such institutions as Scrooge advocated.

If only a tenth or so of us are poor, why must so many borrow so heavily just to get their kids a college education? A true living wage would enable people to ensure the preparation of their offspring for life without themselves risking eating cat food in old age when they can no longer work! But enough. We all know how most people we know are barely hanging on from pay check to pay check. And that is not because they are spend thrifts.

But that quibbling, as do most of Paul's points, misses my point as much as it would miss Lincoln's point to quibble over what was the percent of slaves. We can evolve toward a more egalitarian society in which all have equality and a minimum security and guarantee of life, liberty, and a right to pursue happiness, or we can move toward a country in which we have no equality and those rights are increasingly reserved for the most wealthy. The latter is the way the Bush Tax Plan is headed.

Again it is useless quibbling to point out that Paul's supposed facts that "...money is taken from 57% of taxpayers who earned it and is given to 43% [of taxpayers] who did not earn it" are just false. There are actually few who are able or allowed to earn a living (children, convicts, the unemployed, the indigent and retired, etc., excepted) who legally pay no money. And there are few, if any (taxpayers), who receive no benefits of any kind.

I can't believe that Zupich does not know that. He has to know he is just weaving fabrications in which he has clothed himself as an emporer who must be seen to have no clothes! He pretends that, "The bottom half is exempt from taxation, and the wealthy are heavily taxed." Hell, the unemployed even pay taxes on unemployment compensation when they are fortunate enough!

Even those of us among the 57% know our taxes would be much higher if we did not receive remission of taxes by such devices as the "Hope Scholarship" which cut the tax we paid by 15%. That, among many others is a tax loophole that can be enjoyed only by those 57plus% of us who make enough to pay much more than that to support our kids in college!

The rich take mortgage exemptions and enjoy all manner of loop holes. It is not the poor who avoid or delay their taxes by IRAs and 401 Ks and other savings packages created for the good of banks, financiers, and Fat Cats. It is mainly the wealthy and rich who mostly gain from capital gains and other exemptions and loopholes and from low taxes on unearned income, etc., etc., and etc.

But by far the greatest "rebate" for the super rich is our government's perpetual maintenance of more than 5% unemployment and more than 5% interest rates. Those provide immense wealth for the ruling class. That is the real grounds that promote class warfare. The rich have all kinds of reasons to prefer their lot. The poor have few.

The French Revolution was not primarily, as Paul suggests, over taxation, but over the misery and exploitation of ordinary people that gave them no alternative way to gain an improvement in their miserable lives. Many among us already have nothing to lose and everything to gain by rejecting the system that is subjecting them to a life of misery. The rich are not in misery from taxes. They are favored by a system they want to continue.

Without quoting Thomas Paine, Mr. Zupich would have us believe that Thomas Paine does not sound like a socialist talking. Since Zupich apparently thinks that a "socialist" "...is one who believes in government ownership and control (such as Benjamin Franklin advocated for the Post Office and Washington advocated for the Army), Zupich's interpretation of Paine would be highly suspect, even if one hadn't read Paine's works ahead of time and realized that Zupich hasn't.

I never said that Paine or Jefferson shared socialist origins or opinions. Both were progressives who reached the zenith of their political thought before the French Revolution distorted progressive politics by acting on Rousseau's theory of the general will exercised by mobocracy.

Rousseau's influence was a step backward into a government based on the theory of "might makes right." That idea had already been superceded by Franklin's sharing the implications of philosophy and empirical science with Jefferson and other of our founders, particularly for the writing of the Declaration. Our founders had already realized that a government created to protect their rights must be founded on the self-evident logical necessity of equality for a social compact to underly community.

They had set their sights on a tangent far from that to which the thought of Butler, Locke and Rousseau misled. The fact that"general will" of the majority could never rightly deny the equal rights of all no matter how strong the might of the majority could never allow our progressives to fall back into mistaken European theories of Socialism.

Might does not make right, even the might of majorities or supposedly infinite might of gods spawned by theologies. Only facts and logic makes rights, and its demonstrations demand equality of rights to life, liberty and opportunities to pursue happiness. That is the self-evident and demonstrated basis for our social compact upon which our government of We the People is created and by which it is justified.

But neither progressivism nor socialism are distinguished particularly by favoring government ownership of public services. That is purely compatible with pure democracy. What public services are to be provided in that manner, and what in other ways, is simply more a matter of pragmatic practicality. But in right wing fascistic societies, there is a greater tendency to ignore the rights and values of the public's customers than even in socialist or progressive democratic societies.

In a parting shot responding to my recognition that government needs to raise the money needed to fulfill its responsibilities, but very carefully so as not to waste it, Paul Zupich asks if I am aware that our government is fully funded, and even has more money than needed. In his dreams!

While people are hungry, while there is poverty, while kids are taught with more than 10 to a classroom, while there are latch-key kids, while capable kids can't go to college, when destitute defendants do not have lawyers equal to those prosecuting them, while criminals are not rehabilitated, while many wars on disease have not been won, and many others have not even been declared, while we have not yet conquered the human frontier to clear us of illness, depravity, insanity and all the ill consequences of poverty, and the thousand other ills to which the human mind, soul and society are susceptible, and while most of our current government is performing as foolishly as it has been, and is spending its funds as foolishly as it has been, for fifty years, I know we need vastly more money spent on essentials, the people's real welfare rather than on the corporate welfare now well cared for-as well as to get rid of the professional party politicians who have been misleading us, and misappropriating our taxes, for decades.

The facts that vast sums are still being wasted on defense, spying, the war on drugs, paying banks interest on educational loans which could be provided interest free directly to students, and in a thousand other forms of corporate welfare and useless programs, give hope that we might still find funds for what we need to do by paring the deadwood from our governments.

But until we get pork out of politics, which is required to spend as carefully as we can(as I called for), we need to be increasing or at least maintaining, not decreasing, taxes on those who are using our system to amass unconscionable amounts of profit and other wealth.