Opinion : To the Editor: Another view on 'Mo money'

To the Editor:

Here is another view to Kurt Karr’s opinion:

Bill Keller asserts: "they (our government) create nothing . . . they sell nothing . . . they simply take what they want.” I happen to agree with this assertion. I takes people who are wealth creators, wage earners, pensioners, business owners, others to pay for government excesses. Each dollar taken from the wealth earners is less money they can spend on goods and services. Kurt Karr has another tach – “the government's "product" is an economic "playing field" with agreed upon rules fairly enforced.” A general statement that misses the meat of the question: Each regulation has a cost to the business or individual it applies to. Big companies can afford these compliant costs by hiring the people necessary. Small business has a much harder time understanding and complying, in some cases they must close their doors because it is too costly to comply. Mr. Karr further states, “Many people feel the rules have been influenced to favor those who can afford lobbyists and tax attorneys, and the massive shift in the distribution of wealth supports their concern.” EXACTLY! Who are the big donors to H. Clinton’s campaign? It ain’t the little people – It is a financial district in New York - Wall Street.

Secondly there is much disagreement as to what is good economic policy for the overall economy – read the average folks. Steven Moore, Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, Art Laffer are more in tuned to my ideas on fiscal policy than what we all have seen over the last seven years. Over 90M out of the work force and 45M on food stamps is not a positive indicator. A fix that would work, but will take time is to reform the tax code. Make it simple one rate or perhaps three, no more, and remove all tax breaks and deductions except charitable gifts. As Carly Fiorina has stated no more than three pages.

Last heard there are some 400,000 business startups yearly, but 500,000 close their doors yearly. Why?

As to the appointment of an Associate Justice; It is rare that a Justice dies in office. Many new nominations occurring at the end of a President’s term occur because of retirements. Many have continued on the bench until a new Administration is formed. I see nothing wrong with an eight member SCOTUS. So what if there may be a tie. The Lower Courts ruling will prevail until revisited. Liberal/Progressives want to hurry the process. No Kidding! With the right pick they can get the ruling they wish that they were unable to get with Congress. Congress by the way is elected by the PEOPLE, and is the Constitutional body to make law. The black robes in Iowa ruled on same sex marriage overturning hundreds of years of tradition; - this should have been decided by the people not judges. As I recall there would be a vacancy in the Court during G. W. last 18 months in office. Schumer, Reid, and Pelosi were definitely not for a Bush appointment. Depends on whose OX is getting gored. I guess it is easy to forget the past particularly if it went under the radar.

How on Earth can a Socialist run as a Democrat??? Who are his supporters? – Many who want “free stuff”. I paid for my education – I am not disposed to pay for a college degree for one who doesn’t value it enough to work for it. Ask a Welder, Plumber, Electrician, Tradesman -- you want me to pay for what? Yeah right! AS the country song goes --- “Faster Horses, younger women, older whiskey, Mooore Money! That’s a winning campaign slogan. Gee take a breath – more humor. As Sen Graham( R SC) said looking back ward to Pres. R. Reagan and Speaker Tip O’Neal – “at the end of a long day of disagreeing they had a drink together. When I get to the office we’re going to drink more”. Not a bad idea.

President Obama’s new fiscal plans - Stephen Moore full article ---- http://www.creators.com/conservative/stephen-moore.html

Regards to all,

Vinton, Iowa 52349