Monday, August 25, 2008
McCain made false claims about Obama tax plans
Letters to the Editor
Recent letters to the editor
- Pick of the day: Teacher's conviction should scare parents
- Letters: Payroll tax holiday is no such thing
- The Burgs letters
- Letters archive
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
McCain made false claims about Obama tax plans
Both presidential candidates have proposed cutting taxes for American families. However, Barack Obama's plan gives the biggest tax cuts to those with the lowest income, while John McCain's biggest cuts go to the very wealthy.
Moreover, McCain misrepresents Obama's tax proposals with false and misleading claims. GOP radio ads state that Obama would raise taxes on middle-income families making $42,000 or higher, which is a complete fallacy. In reality, Obama proposes tax cuts for these families and increases taxes only for those families with incomes exceeding $250,000, or $200,000 for single taxpayers.
The ads also claimed that Obama wants higher taxes for small businesses, seniors and on life savings. Again, these claims are false. In fact, Obama promises a $1,000 tax cut for families with a yearly income of $150,000 or less and offers additional tax cuts for education, child care, mortgage payments and for the rising costs of gas and food for low-income families. For seniors with less than $50,000 yearly income, Obama would eliminate income taxes altogether.
The McCain and GOP ads on taxes, approved by McCain, show a pattern of deceit. Obama's proposals will make the tax system more fair and efficient.
Go from glossy to green on inserts
I have a complaint about the unnecessary amount of glossy inserts that are placed into the newspapers. It becomes an issue when one needs to recycle paper only to find that they are lurking in a pile of newspapers about to be recycled.
It would be better if these inserts were printed on a recyclable stock. This way you can save some green by going green.
Push for sobriety, not a lower drinking age
Re: "Lower drinking age is on the table," Aug. 19 front page:
I was reading the story in the paper this week about the presidents of several colleges who want to lower the drinking age to 18 years old. What in the world are they thinking?
Do they not read the papers about the many people who are killed by the young (and older) people who use alcohol and drugs?
We send our children to school to be able to bring something positive to the world. Lord, you know that we need it. They should tell these kids to come to college with a Bible and a sober mind, and four years later, leave the same way, but stronger.
May God bless and keep our children safe from these kind of presidents.
Lower drinking age carries lots of risks
Re: "Lower drinking age is on the table" (Aug. 19 news story):
Thank you, Roanoke Times, for continuing to put this critical youth health issue in the public light. It may be true that some strategies to curb underage drinking on many college campuses are not working. However, underage drinking still poses serious health risks to our young people.
Studies done through national agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have concluded that raising the drinking age has lowered drunken-driving deaths. But there are many other health issues related to underage drinking: academic and social problems, homicides and suicides, depression and risky sexual behavior, plus it is the main cause of death for youth under the age of 21.
Moreover, studies on adolescent brain development show that alcohol can seriously damage the long- and short-term growth process of the brain. The brain is not fully mature until the mid-20s, not at age 18.
Research also shows that each year of delaying drinking onset reduces the risk of alcohol dependence by 14 percent. Lowering the legal drinking age by three years would greatly increase risks associated with dependency and addiction. This critical health issue affects entire communities, not just the colleges and universities.
Coordinator
Roanoke Area Youth Substance Abuse Coalition
Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare
The rich keep getting richer with the GOP
The Republicans' massive transfer of wealth from the lower to the upper classes continues. Phil Gramm, one architect of this transfer, was John McCain's chief economic adviser and would be yet if, on July 10, he hadn't impolitically called the U.S. "a nation of whiners," i.e., don't whine as your money flows into the pockets of Big Oil.
Gramm inserted into a 2000 law the "Enron loophole." His wife, Wendy, also supported deregulation of energy prices and, as a member of Enron's board (and of its audit committee), cleared $915,000 to $1.85 million. Not so those who lost their retirement savings through Enron's accounting frauds. They've got plenty to whine about.
The price of energy, by and large, rises steadily. In February 2008, Dick Cheney-favored Exxon Mobil posted the largest-ever profit by a U.S. company, $40.6 billion.
In 1935, Gen. Smedley Butler, Congressional Medal of Honor winner, published "War Is a Racket." He notes how businesses profit from wars, but soldiers pay the price. His conclusion: "We must take the profit out of war."
McCain opposes Obama's proposed windfall profit taxes on oil. By dragging out the Iraq war, will McCain keep those profits rolling in?
Alumni Distinguished Professor Emeritus Geoscience Department Virginia Tech
Don't waste water on green lawns
Your recent story "Mountain Lake is doing its cyclical disappearing act" (Aug. 16 Virginia section) highlighted the need to recognize water as a valuable resource. However, I continue to see water being wasted on lawn and flower beds.
I observe water running down the street gutters at Valley View, several local apartment complexes and local homes. If, as the reports suggest, we are in a drought condition, why is this allowed to happen? Why not begin to conserve water now and, perhaps, avoid a future crisis?
As a valuable resource, water should be reserved for life-sustaining activities and not to make green lawns. For those of us who are trying to conserve, seeing water being wasted for green lawns, flower beds and running down the gutters is very hard to understand.
Lots of reasons to favor Rasoul
Each of us has his or her reasons to vote for or against particular political candidates. Thanks to letters in The Roanoke Times, we are able to learn about those reasons. I'd like to share some of my reasons to vote for Sam Rasoul for Congress in the Sixth District.
I believe that politicians should not be backed by political action committees. Rep. Bob Goodlatte's political war chest has more than $1 million in it, half a million dollars from PACs. Rasoul's campaign has received about $170,000, none of it from PACs.
I believe in being governed by ordinary citizens. The main role of elected officials is not a legal one -- it's a leadership one. Rasoul is a leader, not a lawyer.
I believe that government should be led by young people like him. Young people have the greatest stake in its decisions, and will have to live with the consequences much longer.
I believe in term limits -- 10 years is plenty for a congressman. Goodlatte is seeking his 17th and 18th years. Rasoul is committed to a 10-year term limit.
I believe that the world will be better off with people like Rasoul in office.
