VOTE

I agree with Mr. Gray on one point: it is “past time for some people to accept reality and not
their opinions as reality.” The rest of his ramblings merely display that this assertion is sophistry
that he doesn’t personally feel the need to comply with.

He cites the Fraser Group, a right or libertarian Canadian “think tank,” which has garnered a
mixed rating from Media Bias Fact Check for factual reporting.

The U.S. is a representative republic, nothing in the founding documents illustrates to the
contrary. In a democracy, such as ancient Greece, citizens (usually male, white, non-slave,
property holders) weigh in on all governmental issues. In the case of the United States, we elect
representatives to whom we delegate that drudgery.

It’s fine to invoke personal responsibility, but the reality is life is more complicated. The wealth
gap and wage stagnation make such total personal reliance improbable. The existence of
insurance for property, liability, etc. further illustrates the improbability of total self-reliance. It
is a favored canard of “conservatives.”

Then there are the court cases. Mr. Gray loves to appear informed, but seldom actually is. The
cases, as usual, don’t say what Mr. Gray claims they do. Social Security was already a tax. In
Helvering v. Davis, it wasn’t ruled a tax, it was ruled constitutional.

As for Fleming v. Nestor, Mr. Gray is half-right. The case did find that there was no right to
Social Security benefits as property. It did not provide for them to be “denied, reduced or
stopped for any reason at any time.” In fact, it required that the intervention could not be
arbitrary or lacking in rational justification.

The case in question had to do with a beneficiary who had been deported, and the reason for
ceasing the payments was that the funds would not be spent in the U.S. The beneficiary in
question was deported for being a communist. That said, there are many ex-pat U.S. citizens
who live abroad and draw Social Security payments.

Mr. Gray does frequently support his drivel with court cases or “facts,” but these consist mainly
of a steady diet of bias confirmation wherein he has concluded that sources that support his
view are facts. The sources frequently don’t even support his conclusions. This just illustrates
that he isn’t a diligent researcher, he’s more an unthinking partisan.

Brian Barnett
Glendale, Mass.