President Obama promised he would cut the budget deficit in half, and he would like to disproportionately tax the 1 percent to do it. And his party, as a whole, would like to cut military spending, since the terrorists have been “decimated.”
The Republicans would like to cut spending by restructuring entitlements, most notably, Medicare and Social Security. They would also like to broaden the tax base so more citizens have “skin in the game.”
Both sides agree the economy and the deficit were better at the end of the Clinton years when we actually had a surplus.
Thank goodness we have a solution. It returns us to the same tax rates we had under Clinton, and it’s a bipartisan bill passed by the Republican-controlled house and the Democratic-controlled Senate. It also carries the blessing and signature of President Obama (also a Democrat).
It is the much maligned sequester bill. It will cut the deficit by $560 billion, almost half, and disproportionately take 17 percent of its revenues from the top 1 percent of earners. It will broaden the tax base and stop the raid of Social Security and Medicare, otherwise known as the Obama payroll tax holiday.
The heaviest cuts are to Medicare and the military. What’s not to like?
I spent the four months of this election cycle in he Deep Red Confederacy of Takers (DRCT) as I waited for election day, where the Civil War was being fought all over again, whereby “the North and South” tried to parse freedom (as does Steve Forbes, editor of Forbes), making their own “freedom-based” points, while claiming God was on their side.
But I see whites in Fort Wayne having hissy fits, too.
I have lots to be thankful for: Mike Pence’s early attack on women via Planned Parenthood; Hoosier voters’ rejection of Mourdock; a fact-resistant GOP; a GOP that is its own worst enemy and elected President Obama.
B. J. Paschal
The Indiana secession movement is the South’s middle finger. “The idea that President Obama could turn the United States into a socialist realm is more interesting psychologically than economically. It suggests depths of giddy retardation that could be plumbed only in a bathysphere,” writes Fred Reed. This writer suggests Fort Wayne’s digital brand of wingnuttery is no exception.
From the online investigation to the Girl Scouts, Planned Parenthood to the milk man, white with foam; got stressed America! Hydrocarbon overlords are supplying the local tea party with costumes and rolled-up Constitutions for beating their Bibles.
Perhaps the overlords can charter a bus to find a Lost Cause Myth. Visit the tip of Texas and Pvt. John J. Williams.
Local wingnuttery can go there and dance on his grave.
Geoffrey B. Waldschmidt
In the Nov. 21 edition of The (Fort Wayne) News-Sentinel, Katie Grieze, reportedly a sophomore at Heritage Junior-Senior High School, argued forcefully and articulately that we should include creationism in our academic curricula:
“Much necessary learning is completed during the adolescent years, but I contend that not enough emphasis is placed on the ability to choose for ourselves what we want to believe.”
She notes that, “The evolution theory is predominant in the curriculum of many states...,” and that, “Teaching only one set of beliefs is dangerous to science, because the truth could be potentially excluded altogether.” Moreover, “Giving all (creation) theories credit in the classroom promotes critical thought, allowing students to carry out the process of developing their own opinion and finding the support to back it up.”
She thus concludes, “The theory of creationism being entwined with religion does not at all lessen its scientific value, and it should therefore be available for the enhancement of students’ ability to make their own informed, logical choices.”
Following this logic, however, there is no obvious reason why we should limit ourselves to any particular theory of creation, whether it is the secular evolutionary or the presumably Judeo-Christian approach. I did a cursory Internet search of creation theories, and found that Wikipedia, for example, lists 91 of the better-known ones, and this is probably the bare minimum.
Should we include all of these in the science curricula of what remains of our public school system? If not, how shall we decide which ones to exclude?
Grieze appears to be a very bright, thoughtful and scholarly young woman, and she certainly should be commended for making her argument. However, as she continues to develop and refine her ideas about this subject, she would likely benefit from giving additional thought to such considerations as presented here.
Galen A. Yordy