Jim Goetsch: Another State Of The Union apologia — contradicted | TheUnion.com

Jim Goetsch: Another State Of The Union apologia — contradicted

It’s my belief that editorials by members of The Union’s Editorial Board should have something to say besides recycling Democrat talking points. I have yet to read anything original by Nancy Eubanks, and her editorial of March 7 is no exception.

First she quotes “facts” without stating where they came from. I have two problems with this: first, I can’t find the poll she is quoting from; and second, what thinking person believes that poll results are “facts” rather than a temporary condition depending on who conducted and controlled the poll? So I ask Ms. Eubanks to have the courtesy and journalistic integrity in the future to list her sources and make sure that what she calls “facts” have some basis in “reality, actuality, and certainty” — all synonyms for “facts.”

Having said this, I can imagine there are polls that show that over 70 percent of those questioned support taxing the rich and receiving paid benefits at no cost to them. Progressives down through the ages (Russia, Germany, and China for example) have used envy of the rich and freebies to attract followers and create a dependent populace.

I was surprised to see that only 73 percent (in Ms. Eubanks’ poll) support equal pay for equal work. I would have thought that 100 percent of us support not only the 1963 law but also the rightness of that position. One recent study — “Equal Pay for Equal Work: Examining the Gender Gap” by Rachel Greszler and James Sherk — by the Heritage Foundation states: “Education, choice of industry and occupation, hours worked, experience, and career interruptions all affect the productivity — and compensation — of workers, whether male or female. Accounting for such factors reduces the difference between average male and female wages to just 5 cents on the dollar. Other factors, such as the cost of fringe benefits, may account for much or all of the remaining gap.”

We may be accused of wanting to do too much cutting, but we don’t see the benefit of continuing to fund government programs (and employees) which aren’t solving the problems for which they were established.

As a conservative with four daughters, I want them to be paid equally for work they do that is equal to what men are doing. I would not expect them to take time out to raise families, avoiding overtime and extensive travel to do so, and then feel they should be paid the same as men and women who put their careers ahead of their families. I think those who put their careers over family are making a drastic mistake, but they do merit more pay and advancement for that sacrifice.

I am intrigued by the progressives’ use of “straw men” (sham arguments set up to be defeated) to define what they think conservatives stand for. I would ask Ms. Eubanks to quote specific instances of a majority of conservative Republicans who profess the beliefs that she puts in our mouths.

We do want to improve the infrastructure that helps all of us, but we saw how the Obama stimulus, which was to have provided shovel-ready jobs to do just that, was instead wasted on paying off Obama supporters and adding new government jobs.

We don’t like the Affordable Care Act, which is anything but affordable and did not let us keep our doctors. Ms. Eubanks states that Obamacare gave some 6 to 10 million working poor families access to affordable health care. However, a Forbes analysis of the Obamacare numbers shows that less than 4 million uninsured have been brought into the program.

Contrary to Ms. Eubanks’ “straw man,” we want to help the “deserving poor” with food stamps and unemployment benefits, but we don’t want to encourage dependence and a sense of entitlement for everyone else. We may be accused of wanting to do too much cutting, but we don’t see the benefit of continuing to fund government programs (and employees) that aren’t solving the problems for which they were established.

Ms. Eubanks states that Obama’s proposals will support the middle class instead of the rich? First of all there aren’t so many “rich” that the “middle class” won’t be taxed as well. Where does one leave off and the other begin? What programs will the middle class have access to that the poor and the rich will not?

Jim Goetsch lives in Lake of the Pines.

Support Local Journalism

Support Local Journalism

Readers around Grass Valley and Nevada County make The Union’s work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.

Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.

Your donation will help us continue to cover COVID-19 and our other vital local news.


Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User


Good Job


I guess I am getting old and grumpy. What is with the “good job” expression being so commonly used in very unexpected settings?

See more