Letters to the Editor

Letter: Golden rule

December 17, 2012


To the editor:

There is a second “golden rule,” and it is represented by Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback. It goes like this “He who has the gold makes the rules.” He seems more a governor representing those who have the “gold” and less a governor concerned about all Kansans. He now has a tax program in place which places most of the cost of services for state government directly on the disappearing middle class and guarantees huge deficits in the next few years choking out all social programs. He seems to consider the problems of the poor, the very young, the homeless, those dependent on help through no fault of their own as expendable and only a liability of no political importance.

Kansas is experiencing what, so far, the United States avoided by not electing a majority of conservative Republicans in the last general election. However they still rule the House of Representatives enough to push us over the fiscal cliff and devalue the stock market by maybe 1,000 points and devalue the dollar enough that it will no longer be the safe investment it has been, perhaps elevating the Chinese yuan to that position. We will soon see just how vindictive they can be. In my opinion, it will mean the death of the Republican Party and the beginning of the collapse of the United States as we have know it.


Brock Masters 5 years, 4 months ago

The GOP has made a very fair offer to resolve the fiscal cliff. The ball is in Obama's court now so hold the rhetoric and hate speech about the GOP pushing us over the cliff until we see what Obama does.

"House Speaker John Boehner is offering $1 trillion in higher tax revenue over 10 years and an increase in the top tax rate on people making more than $1 million a year. He's also offering a large enough extension in the government's borrowing cap to fund the government for one year before the issue must be revisited — conditioned on President Barack Obama agreeing to the $1 trillion in cuts."

jafs 5 years, 4 months ago

Not necessarily a very fair offer.

But, it's worth considering.

What are the cuts? And, are they also over ten years, or a different time frame?

And, what is the $1 trillion in increased revenue based on? Last time I looked, the claims of increased revenue from closing loopholes was overstated by the R.

Brock Masters 5 years, 4 months ago

The offer gives Obama the tax increases on the rich that he wanted. The closing of the tax deductions goes beyond the tax increase so overstated or not, it is more than Obama demanded and even if not perfect is a compromise that can be tweaked if Obama is willing to compromise.

As I said, ball is in his court.

jafs 5 years, 4 months ago

Actually it doesn't - he wants increases on those making more than $250K, not a million - a rather significant difference.

And, as I said, from what I've read, closing loopholes won't raise anywhere near as much as R claim.

The cuts, from what I just saw, involve cuts to Medicare and SS, and changes to those programs, which Obama and the D generally don't like. So, it's a very small shift on the R part.

A very small change combined with cuts that Obama and the D don't like isn't much, and would only warrant a very small concession from the other side.

jhawkinsf 5 years, 4 months ago

There are currently several articles throughout the web about France's recent tax hikes on the wealthy, from 50% to 75%. The reaction to that hike is that many wealthy French citizens and companies are relocating to other countries that have lower tax rates. Fifty percent of something is better than 75% of nothing. Whatever tax hikes are finally settled upon, they have to be balanced or we'll see what the French are seeing.

jafs 5 years, 4 months ago

Since the discussion generally involves something like 39% of income over a certain amount, it seems rather different from the French situation.

And, the difference between that and existing rates is about 3%, nowhere near 25%.

jhawkinsf 5 years, 4 months ago

There are currently trillions of dollars sitting in offshore bank accounts because the tax rates there are lower there than they are here. We need to maintain a balance.

If is becomes advantageous for the wealthy to move their wealth somewhere else, they will.

If it becomes advantageous for companies to offshore jobs, they will.

Balance is they key. For those wanting to stick it to the rich, you're just as likely shoot yourselves in the foot. I don't mean to suggest it's you, jafs, but there are several regulars here.

jafs 5 years, 4 months ago

I agree that we need to consider how people may react.

That's why my suggestions would include even more regulation, to prevent that from happening.

Simply raising rates isn't enough.

voevoda 5 years, 4 months ago

Read it, Pal. You have misunderstood it. Nothing whatsoever "un-American" about it.

Maddy Griffin 5 years, 4 months ago

Geez! Some people can turn anything into an opportunity to bash Obama. He won. get over it.

Pal 5 years, 4 months ago

The New York Federal Reserve's regional manufacturing gauge fell to -8.10 in December from -5.22 in November. The index was expected to rise to -1. Readings above zero point to expansion while those below indicate contraction.

Pal 5 years, 4 months ago

I am supposin' the cliff has already been figured in the market?....

Commenting has been disabled for this item.