Why does your newspaper, along with most media, focus on raising taxes on the rich when the true problem is spending? The proposed tax increases on the rich will not even make a dent in the trillion dollar deficit.
Letter writers also seem to ignore the spending problem, demonizing Republicans for not cooperating in raising taxes, but not addressing the spending problem. Income and spending must both be addressed to solve our debt problem.
On another front, the Democrats have spent the past several years calling the Bush tax cuts a gift to the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi said the tax cuts were "taking food out of the mouths of children to give tax cuts to America's wealthiest" and Sen. Harry Reid said the tax cuts only benefited the very wealthy and eliminated the majority from any benefit from the cuts.
Now, the Democrats have changed the story and say if the cuts on the middle class are allowed to expire, a typical middle class family of four would see its income tax go up by $2,200.
How can this be? Is it a change of heart by the Democrats, or has political expediency now led them to tell the truth? I do not see stories in the media covering this sudden change on the Bush tax cuts.
Charles F. Lenzinger
Hilton Head Island
Now buffoonish Scalia should be impeached
Justice Antonin Scalia is no longer fit to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States. As others have pointed out, he has lost all sense of impartiality, shifting into AM radio host mode with his judicial non sequiturs and embarrassing public statements.
For example, in the decision involving Arizona's immigration law, he criticized President Barack Obama for an action he took that was not remotely connected to the legal issue at hand; Scalia just didn't like it.
In another example, Scalia defended his lumping homosexuality in with murder, bestiality, etc., by saying: "If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against these other things?"
Philosophers have a technical term for this: the yuck factor. Scalia believes that if a majority of people find something yucky, they can ban it in society, be it the eating of broccoli or whatever, on no other grounds than they don't personally like it. He does not understand that we have solid reasons for banning, say, murder; for one thing, it cuts short the life of someone who did not want to have his life ended, and by doing so affects others as well.
If Scalia won't step down, he should be removed by impeachment. The House, though, goes only after Democrats who dally with adult interns. Besmirching the Supreme Court and constitutional principles won't get the present House majority to act for they identify the now buffoonish Scalia as one with them.
David D. Peterson
Walmart doing fine without 'help' of unions
I am writing regarding the letter writer who is going to boycott Walmart because of its alleged bad treatment of its employees. The union bosses are salivating about the potential money that can be made from this endeavor.
I joined a union once. I did get higher pay, but not much else changed except the union bill every month. When I go to Walmart, I don't see anyone who looks like he or she is being overworked. The writer needs to ask employees of other food chains how their work schedule and wages are.
When the union gets in, I can assure you the prices will go up. Layoffs will begin and stores will close, meaning more unemployment. I would like to know what stores the writer will be going to where the employees get treated better.
Living in America, everyone has a choice as to where they work and what kind of work they do. To make life happier, I believe the writer of the letter needs to pull out a $10 bill and give it to the person stocking the shelves, and also the checkers.
I would like to know what stores offer better wages, better conditions and a chance for advancement as does Walmart. I will keep shopping there because of the clean stores, low prices and happy people -- and to keep people employed.