Thursday, May 14, 2009
Secession???
A recent post on thinkprogress.org discusses comments Gov Rick Perry made about support the secession of Texas if Washington continues to force bail out money/programs on the states. His argument is that not all states are willing to accept the money/programs along with the stipulations that Washington is placing on them, and that's a violation of the 10th amendment. I think any talk of secession is absurd. Yes the country is in poor economic shape, but any state seceding from the union is a ridiculous idea. Does he not remember the civil war. I find it hard to believe that the majority of Texas residents would want that to happen. I certainly don't. America, despite it's flaws, is the best country in the world. I don't want to be a resident of a seceded something or other because some pigheaded, arrogant idiot decided that's what was best for me. The best way to overcome the current situation is for lawmakers to put aside their party affiliation and do what's best for the country. Individual states should have the ability to choose if a program is right for their state or not. Throwing a temper tantrum and threatening secession however is not the way to get attention or make a point.
From Soapboxing
, May 8, 2009
Check the Box Rules
President Barack Obama recently proposed to withdraw a rule that allows corporations, which have subsidiaries outside of the country, to avoid paying taxes on income. The check the box rules were created by former President Bill Clinton’s administration and written into law by congress after Clinton tried to have it withdrawn. The check the box rules were intended to help American corporations reduce paperwork. Since the rules went into effect companies have used them as a loop hole to hide income in tax havens overseas. Obama’s overhaul of the tax policy could help raise an extra $210 billion dollars in tax revenues for the government in the next ten years.Opponents of the proposal say this will be really hard on corporations that already have to pay a high tax rate compared to countries like Ireland were corporations are flourishing. The say that if corporations had a lower tax rate companies would be more likely to move to the U.S and bring jobs to Americans and keep their income in the U.S. They also say if corporations have to pay these taxes it will give them an unfair disadvantage in the global marketplace. All of this may be true but it is not faire that corporations residing only in the U.S. should have to pay more taxes then companies that are sending jobs overseas. If it will help our economy to have lower taxes for corporations then we should lower taxes, but I don’t think companies should have the ability to weasel around paying their income taxes.
Check the Box Rules
President Barack Obama recently proposed to withdraw a rule that allows corporations, which have subsidiaries outside of the country, to avoid paying taxes on income. The check the box rules were created by former President Bill Clinton’s administration and written into law by congress after Clinton tried to have it withdrawn. The check the box rules were intended to help American corporations reduce paperwork. Since the rules went into effect companies have used them as a loop hole to hide income in tax havens overseas. Obama’s overhaul of the tax policy could help raise an extra $210 billion dollars in tax revenues for the government in the next ten years.Opponents of the proposal say this will be really hard on corporations that already have to pay a high tax rate compared to countries like Ireland were corporations are flourishing. The say that if corporations had a lower tax rate companies would be more likely to move to the U.S and bring jobs to Americans and keep their income in the U.S. They also say if corporations have to pay these taxes it will give them an unfair disadvantage in the global marketplace. All of this may be true but it is not faire that corporations residing only in the U.S. should have to pay more taxes then companies that are sending jobs overseas. If it will help our economy to have lower taxes for corporations then we should lower taxes, but I don’t think companies should have the ability to weasel around paying their income taxes.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Seriously...GPS
A recent article read in the New York Times explained the rational of certain states increasing usage of GPS devices to track domestic violence abusers and stalkers. According to the article, research suggests that GPS devices help to enforce restraining orders making them "more than just a piece of paper" by allowing law enforcement to see exactly where the abusers/stalkers are at all times and to respond quickly if they are in violation.
This is absurd. Ok, I get that now you can see if they have violated the order by getting too close to the person who they are restrained from. This would be very useful only in validating/proving how many times they broke the violation, but does nothing to PREVENT the violation. Obviously, these people have no respect, well for anyone, but even more so, not for authority. People who respect authority/laws wouldn't violate a restraining order, and better yet, probably wouldn't be abusive or stalk someone to begin with because, well it's wrong. On average it takes police 3-8 minutes to respond to an emergency call. That's a long time when you are being attacked, harrassed, having your tires slashed etc. GPS monitoring does nothing more than provide and increased sense of false security to the vicitms and to law enforcement.
The truth is, we need more strict laws for abusers and more domestic violence prevention programs for people at high risk. Too many times these people get away with a very serious/dangerous crime with little more than a slap on the hand, a few fines and apparently now a nifty GPS system so that the police can tell exactly where the crime occurred.
This is absurd. Ok, I get that now you can see if they have violated the order by getting too close to the person who they are restrained from. This would be very useful only in validating/proving how many times they broke the violation, but does nothing to PREVENT the violation. Obviously, these people have no respect, well for anyone, but even more so, not for authority. People who respect authority/laws wouldn't violate a restraining order, and better yet, probably wouldn't be abusive or stalk someone to begin with because, well it's wrong. On average it takes police 3-8 minutes to respond to an emergency call. That's a long time when you are being attacked, harrassed, having your tires slashed etc. GPS monitoring does nothing more than provide and increased sense of false security to the vicitms and to law enforcement.
The truth is, we need more strict laws for abusers and more domestic violence prevention programs for people at high risk. Too many times these people get away with a very serious/dangerous crime with little more than a slap on the hand, a few fines and apparently now a nifty GPS system so that the police can tell exactly where the crime occurred.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
