Cantoni on the declining sales of The AZ Republic and more

About an hour ago I had sent an e-mail offering my take on the Arizona Republic's 8% drop in circulation and attaching an article of mine on the formula used by the establishment media to cover taxes and government spending. (The e-mail and article are posted at the end of this.)

Since then, I have picked up the Arizona Republic and read the front-page story on cities renewing pay raises. The theme of the piece is that city workers have had to endure cuts in their cost-of-living (COLA) increases this fiscal year, the poor dears. The story proves my earlier point as follows:

First, the 40 column-inch story only quoted city employees, city managers and a union representative. It quoted no one with an opposing view, no taxpayers who are fed up with high taxes, and no local compensation consultants (The head of my compensation consulting affiliate and I have over 50 combined years of experience in setting pay rates and designing pay plans). I had said in my earlier e-mail and article that the formula followed by the establishment press, including the Republic, is to quote tax takers (government employees and other recipients of taxes) much more than taxpayers, who are often not quoted at all.

Second, the story implied that city employees have suffered without pay increases, yet the accompanying table says the opposite. For example, according to the table, Tempe employees received a 3.5% COLA increase and 5% "other" increase in the 2002-2003 fiscal year. Then, when increases were cut back the next fiscal year, they received no COLA increases and 1 to 5% "other" increases. I don't have any clients that increased wages by 8% last year. Moreover, planned increases by my clients for this year range from 1 to 5% and none of the increases will be COLA increases. In fact, a new client, a bank president, wants a new pay plan and said that he doesn't want cost-of-living increases and will not grant merit increases unless both the employee and the bank perform well. In other words, what is a standard pay practice in industry is seen as draconian by city employees and their cheerleaders in the press.

Third, the article did not mention that the budgets of most cities have increased faster than inflation and population growth over the last decade. Nor did it compare the pay and benefits of government employees with private-sector employees. Coincidentally, I published an article yesterday on this subject. It is pasted below. At the end of the article I've pasted the e-mail and article that I sent out about an hour ago.

What the hell are they teaching in journalism school? *****************************************************

Journey from naiveté and apathy to taxpayer rage By Craig J. Cantoni May 31, 2004

My father-in-law recently assisted me in my lifelong journey from the naivete and apathy of my youth about government spending to my taxpayer rage of today.

Having once performed community service on the board of the housing authority in his small hometown in rural Pennsylvania, he recently sent me the pay scales of the full-time staff of the authority, knowing that I have 30 years of experience in evaluating the worth of jobs and establishing pay rates and benefit levels in the private sector. He also knows that I have written columns about how recipients of government housing assistance rip off the system, and he shares my concern over high taxes and unbridled government spending.

It is no surprise that housing authority employees gorge themselves at the public trough as much as government employees from other agencies. But there is nothing like seeing the disgusting feeding frenzy firsthand in one small corner of Leviathan to understand why the government is obese, likely to get even fatter and unlikely to ever go on a diet, regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are in office.

It's bad enough that the recipients of public housing often live in housing that is nicer than the housing of taxpayers, as I saw when my father-in-law gave me a tour of the new public housing in his hometown. But it is rubbing salt in the wound to see that housing authority executives and employees get better pay and benefits than taxpayers. And it is like sticking a blunt needle in the wound to see housing authority executives, both Democrats and Republicans, come to my hometown of Scottsdale from colder climes for taxpayer-paid junkets, er, housing conferences, during the winter.

Please excuse my screaming. It comes from the realization that there is so much vested interest on both sides of the political aisle in maintaining the status quo of so many rice bowls that there is no hope of reforming the system or reducing the per-household cost of government from the current $24,000 -- especially with the establishment media changing its role decades ago from government watchdog to government lapdog.

I could find no expose or critical news story of housing authority pay and benefits in the first 10 pages of a Google search on the subject. Clearly, the establishment media is sleeping soundly in its master's lap as Pulitzer Prize-winning material about government waste goes unreported. Tellingly, the media wolf pack wakes up and howls and growls over corporate fraud and obscene CEO pay, which is a tiny morsel in a huge doggy dish in comparison to government fraud and obscenities, especially the Ponzi schemes of Social Security and Medicare and the nonexistent Social Security trust fund. The pathetic pooch-like press is like a dog that salivates over a dog biscuit while ignoring a two-pound porterhouse steak.

Other important distinctions between corporate and governmental theft escape canine-brained reporters. For example, shareholders were not coerced to buy Enron stock, but taxpayers are coerced to hand over 15% of their pay in FICA taxes. Worse, thanks to a form of child abuse at the hands of the government, today's retirees are sending much of their entitlement bill to today's children.

It doesn't take much research to determine the depth of the housing trough. For example, the starting pay for a maintenance laborer in the Dayton Housing Authority is $13.32 an hour. Munch, munch.

What are the qualifications of a maintenance laborer? A high school degree or GED, and the ability "to read and comprehend simple instructions," as well as the ability to "add, subtract, multiply and divide." Granted, that leaves out many graduates of government schools, but my wife, who is a human resources executive for a national apartment company, says the housing pay is about 40% higher than private-sector pay for comparable work. Belch!

Benefits are even richer. Unlike the private-sector, most housing authorities have pension plans instead of 401(k) plans, fully paid medical insurance, 13 paid holidays, 22 days of vacation after 20 years, and the ability to accrue 12 sick days a year and then to cash in the unused days.

Of course, the richer pay and benefits are warranted, given that government employees work harder than private-sector employees. Just kidding. The real reason for the higher pay and benefits are statutes requiring prevailing union rates. It's not a coincidence that union membership has plummeted in the private sector, where competition prevails, and skyrocketed in the public sector, where competition is nonexistent.

Now that you know why I'm in a rage over taxes and government spending, maybe you can tell me why most Americans remain naive and apathetic. _________

Mr. Cantoni is an author, columnist and founder of Honest Americans Against Legal Theft (HAALT). He can be reached at ccan2@aol.com. *****************************************************

The Arizona Republice had the largest circulation drop in the nation of 8.1%, although it serves a the second-highest growing state in the nation. At the same time, hardly a week goes by without someone writing me and saying that although they love the libertarian (really classical liberal) themes of my weekly column (for which I accept no money) and the conservative themes of Bob Robb's column, they are cancelling their subscriptions in the face of the overwheming number of stories and editorials favoring increases in taxes and government spending. Is there a connection between the two facts? Selfishly, I want circulation to increase and have written articles for other publications and Internet sites detailing the lack of balance in news stories in the establishment press on social, economic and tax issues, in the hope that someone at the paper would notice and respond accordingly. My latest is below. As a consultant to a newspaper that has increased circulation and profits considerably, I understand the demographics facing newspapers, including the fact that young people are not reading newspapers as much as older people, but that makes it even more shortsighted to disenfranchise older readers, many of whom are conservative. ******************************************************

The media's formula for covering tax and spending issues is as unintelligent, unoriginal and unimaginative as teenage girls who copy the latest fashion trend from Britney Spears.

The standard formula is to quote individuals and special interests on the receiving end of taxes instead of taxpayers on the paying end, thus leaving the impression that there is overwhelming support for higher taxes.

To illustrate, an article last year in the Arizona Republic about a state budget deficit quoted 12 people who were either public-sector employees or on some government program. All 12 were in favor of higher taxes instead of spending cuts. No self-interest there. Not one person with the opposite view was quoted. No biased reporting there.

Worse, the story made no attempt to put taxes and spending in context. Like virtually every story on the subject, it was silent about the tax burden of average families and how much the burden has increased over the generations. The reporters were either ignorant, lazy, had an agenda or were sheep-like followers of the journalism herd.

In case they miss the point, none of the foregoing explanations is a compliment -- not that it matters to reporters and their editors. Even after their unbalanced reporting has been exposed, and even with the establishment media losing market share, they continue writing articles solely from the perspective of tax takers. "Hey, it's the formula, stupid!" is their refrain, and "Hey, the New York Times does it!" is their excuse.

What would a different formula look like? The following fictitious article shows how a story on taxes might be written to reflect the views of taxpayers. ********************************************************

The possibility of higher taxes for education and day care has many taxpayers upset.

"Federal spending alone costs the average Arizona family $20,000 per year," said Steve Sanchez, the owner of a landscape company in Gilbert. "With state and local spending thrown in, I'm working four months of the year for the government."

Joan O'Brien of Scottsdale had similar sentiments. "I'm fed up with the public education establishment repeating the canard that Arizona ranks low in per-pupil spending. The fact is, we rank near the middle, and the average household pays about $190,000 in public education taxes over the lifetimes of the heads of the household."

"Half of my income already goes to the government," lamented Craig Cantoni of Scottsdale, "and the majority of that goes to other people and special-interest groups in the form of entitlements and subsidies. The Democrats talk about fairness, but they refuse to say how much more my wife and I should pay to achieve their utopian view of fairness." Cantoni went on to describe how his poor immigrant grandparents could afford to send their kids to parochial school, because tax rates in the early 20th century were only about a third of today's rates.

Melody Carter, a state employee and single mother of four toddlers, had a different opinion. "How do they expect me to make ends meet on my lousy salary without state assistance for day care?" She refused to explain what happened to the father of her children, why she keeps having children she can't afford, and why she thinks that she is entitled to other people's money. "My personal life is nobody's business," she said angrily as she stormed off.

State Representative Robin Wright, a Democrat, was asked if she thought it was fair for a family to pay half of their income in taxes. "What a mean-spirited, selfish question," responded Wright. "People should be happy to help the poor. It's the compassionate thing to do." Wright refused to say how much she pays in taxes and how much she gives to charitable causes.

Republican State Representative Susan Poole laughed when she was told about Wright's comment. "Typical redistributionist. Yes, people have a moral responsibility to help the less fortunate, but Wright fails to understand that people don't have a right to other people's money. Besides, forced compassion is not compassion. That's why private charity is best for the giver, the receiver and society as a whole."

Todd Talbot, the director of the Copper State Tax Research Foundation, called the compassion issue a "red herring," explaining that over half of Arizonans now get more back in entitlements and government services than they pay in taxes. "Unless you're a socialist, you can't tell me that over half of the population is poor and deserving of other people's money," said Talbot.

Talbot believes that the nation has reached the "tax-tipping point," which is the point where "the majority of voters begin to beggar the minority of voters." His final comment was sobering: "The fatal flaw of the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights is that there is nothing in the law to stop the majority from taking all of the minority's money."

Judging by the angry reaction to the latest tax proposals, many Arizonans seem to agree with Talbot.

Is the preceding fictional piece biased? Perhaps, but less so than the formulaic reporting of the establishment media. Would news stories similar to the fictional piece change public opinion about taxes and spending? Yes, and that's why the establishment media won't change the formula. __________

Mr. Cantoni is an author, columnist and founder of Honest Americans Against Legal Theft (HAALT). He can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

Is it possible to pick up the newspaper and not have your intelligence insulted? Not today.

The headline on the front page of the local section of today's Arizona Republic reads: "State ranks 45th in kids' well-being." The accompanying story quotes a study by the left-leaning Annie E. Casey Foundation and quotes the director of the left-leaning Children's Action Alliance. It did not quote anyone with a different perspective and ideology.

The story cites a high dropout rate, a high teen birth rate, a high child death rate, the percentage of children in poverty and the percentage of children in single-family homes as the primary causes of the state's low ranking. It also lists the five states with the best ranking (Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Iowa, Utah) and the six states with the worst ranking (Arizona, South Carolina, Alabama, New Mexico, Louisiana, Mississippi). Surprisingly, unlike many previous stories on the subject, today's story did not imply that the low ranking is due to cheapskate, heartless Republican legislators who don't want to raise social spending and taxes.

So where was the insult to intelligence? It was the fact that the story did not mention the role that race plays in the states with high rankings and in the states with low rankings. Because of political correctness, ignorance, laziness, a leftist bias or whatever, race wasn't mentioned at all. Thus, readers did not get the full story.

Putting New Jersey aside for a moment, four of the five states with the best rankings are overwhelmingly white, ranging from 89% white in Utah to 96% white in New Hampshire. Four of the six states with low rankings have large black populations, ranging from 25% black in Alabama to 36% black in Mississippi. Two of the states with low rankings, Arizona and New Mexico, have large Hispanic (really Mexican) populations, at 25% for Arizona and 40% for New Mexico, and large Native American populations, at 5% for Arizona and 9% for New Mexico.

At first, New Jersey seems like an anomaly. It ranks in the top five but has a white population of only 69%. But having lived in the Garden State and being honored as "Community Service Volunteer of the Year" by a major Gannett newspaper there, I know the state very well and understand that it really isn't an anomaly. First, 5% of the state is Asian, mostly from the subcontinent of India. Second, a significant percentage of its Hispanic population, unlike New Mexico and Arizona, is Puerto Rican and Cuban. Third, the white population consists of a lot of old money, a large professional class and relatively few lower-income transients, unlike New Mexico and Arizona. When people get divorced in other states and look for a place to start a new life, they tend to move to the Southwest and not to New Jersey, where housing is expensive. Such factors also explain why New Jersey ranks near the top in per-capita income.

In other words, both low and high rankings are mostly the products of racial demographics, immigration patterns and socioeconomic legacies. And that, as Paul Harvey says, is the rest of the story. __________

You can reach the author at ccan2@aol.com. *******************************************************

The Arizona Republic is changing for the better. Yesterday's article on the comtemplated city-financed hotel for downtown was a very balanced piece, unlike the tripe that has been published on the light-rail system, which will waste $2.3 billion in taxpayer money.

There were only two flaws with the piece. One, since the stated purpose of the hotel is to attract conventions to an expanded convention center, it should have said something about the excess convention space in the country and the folly of building more space and then trying to get around the law of supply and demand with a subsidized hotel. Pasted below is an in-depth City Journal article that addresses this point. Second, the Republic article should have included statistics on the large number of conferences that are held at suburban hotels and resorts, which, due to their amenities, give the Valley a competitive advantage over other cities. As I know from personal experience in hosting meetings at Valley resorts, the resorts have a carryover effect, in that many conference attendees will extend their stay beyond the conference dates to play golf and engage in other activities that will never be available downtown.

After publishing a four-page article yesterday saying that Republicans are either in denial or power-hungry liars for claiming that they are for limited government and that they have actually limited government, an Arizona Republic editorialist was on the local PBS affiliate last night speaking favorably about "moderate Republicans." Can someone please tell me what a "moderate Republican" is?

I think it is someone who goes along with Democrats regarding increased taxes and spending on education and other social programs, but I'm not sure. If that is the right definition, then I have a follow-up question: Why is that considered moderation?

To me, the term smacks of some kind of Orwellian doublespeak or Politburo propaganda, especially considering the statistics on the growth of government that I cited in my article and which I'll summarize below. It's the opposite of moderation. It's immoderation, or to use a synonym, excessive. It would be akin to calling someone who drinks a fifth of Jack Daniels each night a "moderate drinker." Given the facts about taxes and spending, the big spenders should be called "excessive Republicans" or "immoderate Republicans" or "thieving Republicans." Here are some of the facts:

- We are leaving our kids a horrible legacy of debt in the trillions of dollars for our entitlements and other selfish, greedy gorging. Some economists put the total bill for future generations at $40 trillion. If that's moderation, then robbing piggy banks is moderation.

- Transfer payments, which are a euphemism for citizens taking money from their neighbors, now account for 40% of federal spending, up 20-fold from 1900, when they accounted for 2% of federal spending. Moderation?

- When my grandparents immigrated here in the early 20th century, total government expenditures were about 8% of Gross Domestic Product. Today, they are about 375% higher. Moderation?

- In 1914, the year after the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment and five years before my dad's birth in the coal mining town where his dad worked in the mines and was able to keep almost all of his money from the tax man, the income tax per capita was $69 in inflation-adjusted dollars. Today, it is over $2,500. Moderation?

- The tax rate on a median family was zero in 1914. Today, it is over 25%. Moderation?

- In 1914, there were four pages of IRS forms. Today, there are over 4,000 pages. Moderation?

- Discretionary non-defense spending will have increased by 30% in President Bush's first term. Moderation?

- There are now about 22 million federal, state and local public-sector employees, or about 83% more than manufacturing employees. The nation has "outsourced" millions of wealth-producing jobs from the private sector to the wealth-taking public sector. Moderation?

- Local county and city governments have spent about $1 billion on subsidies to private sports teams and another billion for an expanded convention center and a biotech research center in the face of excess convention capacity and excess biotech investment across the country. In addition, they are proposing $2.3 billion on a light-rail line that will actually increase pollution and have a negligible effect on traffic. That comes to $4.3 billion, which is equivalent to the annual income of about 108,000 families. Moderation?

Help me out here. In view of the foregoing facts, could someone please tell me what the term "moderate Republican" means and why the mainstream media loves to use it? Thanks in advance for sending your response to the e-mail address below. I may summarize the responses without the names for a future article.

Mr. Cantoni is a moderate author, moderate columnist, moderate small "L" libertarian and moderate founder of Honest Americans Against Legal Theft (HAALT). He lives with his moderate family in Scottsdale, Arizona, where the summer temperatures are not moderate. He can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

His final comment was sobering: "The fatal flaw of the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights is that there is nothing in the law to stop the majority from taking all of the minority's money."

Oh???

How about THESE??

Section. 2.

Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Section. 9.

Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Clause 4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. (See Note 7)

Clause 5: No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.