Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Republicans can't justify voting 'no' on jobless benefits
Letters to the Editor
Recent letters to the editor
- Letters: A home-school mom pays taxes, too
- Pick of the day: Home-schoolers reject public schools
- Pick of the day: Passing the buck won't stop abuse
- Letters archive
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Republicans can't justify voting 'no' on jobless benefits
Republican legislative leaders justified their decision to reject $125 million in enhanced federal unemployment benefits by claiming they are doing "everything possible to help these people" ("GOP defends stance on benefits," April 24 news story).
Do they care about workers who lost jobs in declining industries and who are enrolled in retraining programs or the part-time workers who would be covered by the program they rejected?
The major reason Republicans give for rejecting the $125 million that would have funded the enhanced federal unemployment benefits is that employers would have to shoulder the costs when federal funds expire. Wrong! If the legislature determined that the expanded benefits were not worth Virginia employers paying the additional $4.56 per year per employee, they could rescind the expanded benefits.
However, Virginia's Unemployment Trust Fund could use the $125 million to delay the increase in unemployment taxes that employers must pay to keep the trust fund solvent and to provide expanded benefits to 8,000 Virginians during this economic crisis.
This Republican "no" costs both the unemployed expanded benefits and Virginia's employers unnecessary tax increases.
Americans recall Gingrich too well
Looks like Newt Gingrich wants to be the leader of the Republican Party again. That should be interesting. He would fit right in with the Republican hypocrites.
Remember when he was hammering former President Clinton about his affair with Monica Lewinsky while at the same time he was having an extramarital affair with a member of his staff?
Newt is a brilliant man, but he seems to believe that the American people are stupid or have very short memories.
They protest too early
People need to be concerned about federal spending, but when you are having tax day protests all over the nation three months into a new president's term and proclaiming it his fault, then the whole exercise begins to look like nothing more than a hypocritical, thinly veiled Republican propaganda exercise in rewriting history that the likes of Rush Limbaugh would heartily approve.
Let's not already forget who introduced all this excess and insane budget-busting spending to begin with. It was George W. Bush, in case you need a quick reminder. Where were all these so-called protesters two, three, four, five, six years ago? April 15 saw protests by nothing more than groups of self-serving hypocrites who would love for you to forget who got us here to begin with.
Explain the facts of life about tipping
I know you've got a lot on your minds. Many of your children are heading out to their first big dress-up dates; dresses have to be altered, shoes dyed, tuxedos rented -- not to mention the things you need to tell your youngsters before they head into the night: Don't drink and drive, party responsibly, etc.
May I be so bold as to give you one more thing to do before turning them loose on the Roanoke Valley? They're all dining out, possibly for the first time paying a big bill, and they don't know they're expected to tip for good service.
It's not that they intend to be rude, they're just not used to paying the bill. Servers dread prom season because it's pretty standard behavior for a table of six, 10, even 12 or more prom-goers to occupy their waitress's entire Friday or Saturday night, then leave a dollar or two -- if anything -- on a several hundred dollar tab. Prom nights regularly make servers late paying their rent.
Please, take a moment to fill them in: 15 to 18 percent is standard for good service, 20 percent is normal for great service and big parties.
JASON McNEIL
ROANOKE
Obama critics can't see the value of change
This is in response to letters written by Andy Huynh ("Obama has made the U.S. less safe") and Phillip Unger ("Clear reasons for taxpayer anger," both April 24), whom I have to consider loyal members of the unthinking minority -- they who just don't quite get it.
Huynh decries Obama shaking hands with Hugo Chavez while receiving a gift book written 10 years ago regarding supposed exploitation of Latin America and describing what the Catholic Church has been doing for 500 years. Isn't it an intelligent move that we turn the other cheek to graciously heed a political hack who represents one of our better petroleum-supplying countries?
Unger fails to realize that the debt currently generated by the Treasury Department to pay down grievous mortgage defaults, medical deficiencies et al., was quietly created some time ago by the previous deregulating, procrastinating, non-planning, non-thinking Republican administration. As an astounding result, the U.S. dollar still reigns supreme over other world currencies today.
Luckily, we now have an administration that is totally unlike the previous, pitiful, perfidious steward of our country. It thinks ahead.
Desert solar energy is a half-baked idea
I've heard the government wants to put massive solar panels in the Nevada desert. That would be fine except it means bulldozing 100 acres, which would destroy the very fragile ecosystem.
Then, they will need billions (with a "B") of gallons of water, which is a precious commodity in the desert. Then they will have to build massive transmission towers to move the electricity to ... where? California perhaps? Sounds like something the eco-nuts will just love.
Certainly makes more sense than piping oil from Alaska, drilling off the continental shelf, building nuclear plants, using hydroelectric power and on and on. Thanks, America, for putting our future in the dumper all the way around.
A split opinion on Obama
President Obama's recent direction to cabinet heads to cut $100 million from a $3.5 trillion budget is intended to make him look like a hard-choice-making fiscal conservative. At the same time, he is proposing deficit spending for the next budget year that is unprecedented in the nation's history.
The Roanoke Times editorial of April 24, "$100 million is chump change," appeared to criticize the president for his silly attempt at trying to look fiscally responsible. But, by the end of the piece, he was being defended for increasing spending for years to come.
Which is it? Are we supposed to criticize the president's minuscule attempt at cost-cutting, or are we supposed to applaud record-breaking budget deficits that will keep America a debtor nation for years to come?
As all household managers know, piling debt upon debt does not ease a family's financial distress unless the family invests, for example, in the next Microsoft. This approach is risky, though; the family could just as easily pick GM or Chrysler. When is our government going to try saying "no" to ever-increasing spending and honestly try to live within its means, as most of its citizens do?
