Good AM, folks!
The Readers' Forum is inaccessible for the time being, at least for me. If any you have access, please copy 'em and post as a comment below. If that's not possible, inveigh as you will, within reason. I'm putting a floor down so I will be an infrequent visitor today. TTYL.
Yes, the entire Journal website is running very slowly, indeed. Here are the letters for today, Saturday, July 30, 2011:
ReplyDeleteJob creators
Conservatives argue that very rich people are the "job creators" and that taxing them just one or two points more would make them less likely to expand and hire more people. But just the opposite is true. Over the past 60 years, job growth has been greater in years when the top income tax rate was much, much higher than it is now.
In years when the top marginal rate was more than 90 percent, the average annual growth in employment was 2 percent. In years when the top marginal rate was 35 percent or less (which it is now) employment grew by an average of just 0.4 percent.
Pick any threshold. When the marginal tax rate was 50 percent or above, annual employment growth averaged 2.3 percent, and when the rate was under 50, growth was half that.
Ranking each year since 1950 by overall job growth, the top five years all boast marginal tax rates 70 percent or higher. The top 10 years have marginal tax rates 50 percent or higher. The worst years have been when the top marginal tax rate was at its lowest. So where is the evidence that the lower marginal tax rates spur job creation? It's certainly not present in the past 60 years of American history.
Keep this in mind the next time a conservative claims that raising the rates for the wealthy would "destroy jobs."
JEANNE SCOTT MATTHEWS
Clemmons
Recent actions
Republican philosophy says that you have the right to be born. But recent actions by the Republican Party are preventing U.S. citizens from having the right to live.
JESSIE LEONARD WILLIAMS JR.
Pinnacle
Meaningful efforts
I would like the Journal to stop calling our military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan "the war against terror," as in the July 24 editorial "Name bridge for soldier who gave all." In stories on successive days ("Somali militants vow to block aid," July 23; "Militants block aid to Somalis," July 24), the Journal details abhorrent acts of terrorism against the starving people of Somalia. It details vain efforts by the U.N. and other organizations to aid these people. What appears to be absent is any meaningful effort by the U.S. government to rectify this situation.
In contrast, the U.S. has spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Add to that the military interventions in Libya, and it becomes clear that the U.S. government is more concerned with access to foreign oil than with combating terrorism or aiding the victims of terrorism.
I am not advocating military intervention in Somalia — that would be as pointless as the current military efforts elsewhere. I am encouraging each of us to look at what our government is doing: Maintaining access to foreign oil rather than helping powerless, starving refugees. Do our government's actions reflect the values we wish to embrace?
I am in favor of naming the bridge on U.S. 421 for Specialist David "J.R." Timmons. I am sorry for the family and friends who grieve his passing. I wish I could feel better about the cause for which he gave his life.
STEVE McCULLOUGH
Winston-Salem
had to split it into two parts. There is a 4,096 character limit, which includes spaces.
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to the future
Hooray! We've reached 9.9 percent unemployment in June, and Robin Hayes, the Republican Party Chairman, is happy ("N.C. jobless rate rose to 9.9 percent in June," July 23)! He hopes further state-government layoffs continue! Let's celebrate and rejoice over the "rightsizing of government" such as my personal favorite, laying off school-district employees. Are young folk looking forward to the future yet?
The Republican Party has always been on the side of big industry. As we know, CEO pay has increased astronomically during the past several years, while middle-class pay has been stagnated for several years. In addition, the "tax breaks" provided to big corporations haven't increased hiring, only increased the pocketbooks of large corporations and CEOs. Are young people looking forward to the future yet?
Unfortunately, we fell for the propaganda. We have elected officials who are rigid, uncompromising and backward, not forward thinkers. I fear for the future of our country because of this type of politician, not because of the debt limit. Are young folk looking forward to the future yet?
MITZI V. LOGAN
Rural Hall
Fresh air
Columnist Donald Kaul is a breath of fresh air. He is knowledgeable, has wisdom and provides a balance on the Journal's opinion pages. I always read him first.
GENE GRAHAM
Winston-Salem
Thank you, Jeanne Scott Matthews for saying what needed to be said, and saying it so clearly. No sane person can ignore such indisputable facts.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, the ReaganHeads, who are stuck in the '80s still spouting the false religion of trickle down economics, will deny it. Somehow that mantra has become embedded in whatever agenda that they are pursuing.
The irony is that the loudest voices come from decidedly middle class people who will never have to worry about such high tax rates. The rich thank you, ReaganHeads, for doing their lobbying for them, so that they have more time for skiing and golf.
Stab....I see you will be putting down a floor today....any chance you get get it down and level before the Stellas take over?
ReplyDeleteThe brain surgeon's bill (Sen. Harry Reid (D) was voted down today by the House of Representatives. Somehow, he thought voting down the Republicans' bill would not come back to haunt him and the Democrats.
ReplyDeleteIt's much like Obama thinking he doing a great job as president. It's just plain stupid.
Good PM,folks! Thank you O. T. for posting the LTE's.
ReplyDeleteHi WW! Stella must always wait till the job is done, Dad put to bed, and the evening settled. Unfortunately, the floor is only half-finished, as Dad hit a low spot today, and he and I are abiding in the ER at FMC while they look at a variety of his symptoms. No critical problem, though. I brought a laptop along to while away the time.
LTE1: Ah yes, the old "We taxed our way to prosperity and full employment" line. The economy of the 50s and 60s was much different from that of today. Our global competition was digging out of WW2, with some of those economies strangled by the central planning so beloved by the American Left. Our corporations enjoyed a captive domestic market and lots of exports. The economy was also beginning to benefit from the passage of Taft-Hartley in the late 40s.
ReplyDeleteAnother difference is that we enjoyed cheap energy in those days, which gave us a cost advantage over many other countries, and allowed us to retain wealth that has since been transferred overseas for oil and other natural resources.
Now, the issue of executive pay, and the tax rates thereon, and on other compensation, is debatable. Ditto for all those entertainment figures who shovel dough to Democrats. Let's see how high those marginal rates really get raised.
LTE2: This tidbit of a TB* rant could do for an explanation of Republican denial of a right to live.
ReplyDelete*TB = True Believer (an diehard loyalist of either left- or righthand persuasion).
LTE3: How much oil does Afghanistan export? We also intervened in Somalia, which today is a net exporter of pirates and refugees. To be sure our record of interventions, humanitarian or otherwise, is spotty. We missed on the slaughter in Rwanda.
LTE4: Cut the corporate tax breaks fine, but remember, corporations merely collect taxes, so expect prices to rise. Also, there are hidden consequences. Don't like the tax breaks for corporate jets. The blue-collars types who assemble the airframes, engines, interiors, avionics, etc., do, not to mention the ramp rats and mechanics who service them. The list could go further.
Don't like exec compensation so high? I don't either, or the vast sums paid to entertainers. So raise their taxes a bit, no problem. Don't overdo it. A lot of waiters and hotel clerks like the fact those swells have a lot of disposable income. Ditto domestic employees, clothiers, caterers, accountants, agents, and so on.
LTE5: To each his own.