Democrats see job creators as villains

This letter in the Sun is about how spending doesn't create jobs. Investing creates jobs. The first paragraph says,

Despite spending hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars, Democrats have failed to stimulate job creation. Why?

In the next paragraph, it continues,

Investment, not spending, creates jobs. The source of the dollars Democrats have borrowed and spent is the private sector.

While I believe that it is true about government spending and private investing, I don't think it is entirely the Democrats fault.

The Republics are also responsible. After all, the Democrats and Republicans have had complete control of government for over 100 years.

It is time to elect candidates who will uphold the Constitution instead of destroying it and our country. It is time to elect third party candidates to show that we will not take it any longer.

Social Security and you

The headline in the Review Journal said,

Politics choke Social Security.

It goes on to say that many Democrats adamantly oppose any reductions in benefits to cut costs, and some won't accept a gradual increase in the retirement age. It continues saying that Republicans say an increase in Social Security taxes is out of the question , even for the wealthy.

Social Security is broke and the time to act is now. I propose that everyone over 40 can continue to pay into social security and collect it. Everyone 30 to 40 have the choice to stay in social security or not to stay in it. Everyone under 30 is out and can pay into a 401 type of account and receive the tax benefits.

I am sorry that I could not find a link to the article, but I did find a link to this article about how social security is broke.

People say how will we pay for your plan. My question is how are we going to pay for what we have. We had a 800 billion dollar bail out for the financial institution, but we don't do anything about the people who are losing their homes, their jobs, and now their social security.

Dropout remedy challenged

There are 2 articles in the Review Journal about drivers licenses and school. Two years ago, I proposed that the Driving Age be 21 year of age with 3 exceptions.
One is if you are in the military.
Two is if you have graduated from high school or a trade school.
Three is if you are 16 years old and in school with a C average or better.

One article is entitled "Stopping dropouts from getting licenses a bad idea". This article is added restrictions to the license question which are not necessary. Therefore, the arguments do not apply and the article doesn't apply either.

The second article is more to the point. However, the article doesn't provide any real evidence that such a law would not work. While a few states have tried similar laws, they do not have any statistics on the effect of the law. It does say that

North Carolina has had a law denying driver's licenses to dropouts since 1998. Last year, the state had a graduation rate of about 75 percent.

The problem with most of the proposals and laws is that they are added other restrictions to the law. Politicians have to add something to a law even if it is not pork. They cannot help it.LOL

All the arguments about hardships to the students are not justifiable. It is wrong to let children go into the work place without an education. When they cannot get a job, that is a hardship.

Does more money mean better education?

This article by the NPRI talks about Nevada's pupil per teacher ratio. It explains how $83 million will be available to K-12 education in Nevada would decrease the ratio only by 1.4 students per class if all the money went to saving teachers who would be fired.

According to U.S. Department of Education figures, Nevada's pupil per teacher ratio was 18.3 in 2006-07. Losing 1,660 teachers, the ratio would rise to 19.7 — or just 1.4 additional students per teacher. Not exactly the end of the world.

Of course, all the money will not go to teachers. Almost 50% of the educational budget goes to administration so it stands to reason that 50% of the additional money will also go to administration.

However, according to this article, the pupil per teacher ratio doesn't have any effect on the education of the students.

I believe that we need to split the budget into administrative and teaching so that the legislature can have some control over the educational spending. We need to cut the administrative budget and put the money were it will do the most good. We need to start emphasising teaching.

The bailouts total

I received this statement in an email from a financial institution.

Two weeks ago, we noted the most recent estimate of the financial system bailout: Over $3.7 trillion. Mr. Geithner could have written a $264,000 check to each of the 14 million currently unemployed Americans for the same price.

I haven't varified the figures, but I felt that if we gave each homeowner a voucher for 20% of the mortgage on their home up to $150,000 good only for a mortgage modification, we could have reduced the real estate crisis and helped both the home owners and the banks.

Working against workers

An article by the NPRI written by Patrick R. Gibbons is about the Minimum Wage Law and its effect on unemployment. It states that,

Nevada's political leaders have only made the situation worse. The legislature kicked Nevadans while they were down with, yet again, a massive tax increase in 2009. Legislative leaders have also virtually destroyed what little economic confidence remained in the state by repeatedly talking up more tax increases and spending $250,000 on a dubious study to justify their hunger for a corporate income tax.

Nevada voters don't escape responsibility, either. They put a thoroughly destructive minimum-wage law in the state constitution by a voter initiative in 2006. Thus on July 1 of this year the state minimum wage increased to $8.25 an hour for laborers without health insurance.

In 2011, Nevada's political leaders will likely pass the largest tax increase in Nevada's history so that they can spend more money which they do not have.

Instead of raising taxes and spending money, we need to help businesses to grow to create jobs and stimulate the economy.

Employers 0, employees just getting welfare

This letter to the editor in the LVRJ, is about the extended unemployment payments. It states that,

There are jobs waiting to be filled, but far too many people who are receiving unemployment are not taking these jobs. Why, you ask? Because they get checks that are almost the same amount they can earn by actually working. Would you give up the money that the government is sending to you to stay home?

There is a lot of truth to this statement. I know at least 3 people that turned down jobs because they decided it was not worth working for the difference between what they would be paid and what they received from unemployment payments.

This letter also present these 4 facts.

First, it would be nice if members of our House delegation knew that "employers" pay for unemployment insurance, not employees.

Second, Nevada currently owes the U.S. government approximately $500 million that it has borrowed to make the current unemployment payments.

Third, before this past week's extension, Nevada's unemployed were receiving 99 weeks of benefits -- now it is 125 weeks. That is a staggering five weeks short of two-and-one-half years of unemployment benefits.

Fourth, next year the employers will be facing substantially increased unemployment tax rates in order to start repaying the government and the $90 million of interest that will be due on the borrowed money. These tax increases will keep businesses from hiring new employees

.

Now, I haven't checked these facts out for accuracy, but they are scary. I mean 500 million in debt. We had to cover an 800 million budget deficit last year and this wasn't included.

We are facing the largest tax increase in history in 2011 unless we make some drastic changes instead.