This is a great story about a small town and how it raises it's children. It seems to prove that Hilary is right and it truly does take a village to raise a child. It also shows that it takes parents who take responsibility for their children and their proper training.
Thoughts anyone?
An article in the November 4th Parade Magazine entitled, "A Better Way to Travel" highlights the current state of the nation's rail transportation system. It is interesting that the mode of transportation that is credited with opening up the westward expansion during the 1800s is now the black sheep of the transportation family.
Having travelled in Europe, I have experienced first hand what a wonderful and exciting trip can be had by rail. In addition, Europeans make it unnecessary to travel by car. To be fair, the entire continent of Europe can fit inside the Eastern half (from the Mississippi east) of the United States, but that doesn't excuse our lack of decent rail transportation.
I would travel to Chicago by rail, except the trip is over 28 hours long each way and costs over $280 round trip. This compares to a trip on American Airlines which would take just over two hours but would cost $448 round trip (which could be lowered to under $225 if I reserve farther in advance). This same trip would take 15 hours by car and cost less than $250 in gas.
If we were to invest in some of the rail technology currently commonplace in other places around the globe, we could reduce that trip to something more in the range of 9-12 hours. This is still longer than a plane trip, but it offers several advantages. First, you can walk freely around the train as it travels. Second, unlike air travel, you will travel regardless of rain, wind, snow, fog, etc. Lastly, rail travel affords time for relaxation, cell phone use, laptop use, reading, watching out the window, and conversation. While some of this is available during air travel, some of it is not and most of it is not available during travel by car.
Given this, I feel that it is time the United States government and the individual states, begin looking to rail travel as a way to reduce dependence on foreign oil and emission of CO2 gases. The federal government pays billions to build and maintain highways, why shouldn't a good portion of that money go towards building and maintaining a reasonable rail system? History has shown that when given the option to take a well-run, on-time, conveniently scheduled train versus any other type of transportation, train useage increases dramatically. It's time to contact your Representatives and Senators and let them know there is a need for federal money to improve and increase our rail availability.
Thoughts anyone?
I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to work with a New Store Opening team in upper New York state for the past week. Aside from the chance to mingle with some great people from stores throughout 5 states, I also worked with many of the "locals". It was a week that I won't forget soon.
As I was driving home through the mountains full of changing leaves, I was struck by the thought that we miss an awful lot by staying home or merely relying on planes to carry us from place to place. By "getting off the interstate" (a line from the great movie "Doc Hollywood"), I was able to see the local houses and places of employment. I saw all the diners and auto repair shops. I was able to remember that throughout this country, regardless of political affiliation, religious beliefs, or economic status, we go about our daily lives being in our communities, working with our co-workers, and trying our best to live good lives. It makes you remember how much we are similar. It makes you forget all of the idiosyncracies that drive you crazy about the people in your area. It makes you remember that we are all in this together.
As much as I hate to advocate the use of gas and production of CO2, I encourage all of you to take a drive to someplace different and to appreciate how much we are alike.
Thoughts anyone?
This video on YouTube shows over 18 million hits. As you watch it, you'll understand why. I especially appreciate the total lack of political overtone and total focus on the humanity of our troops. Watch.....
A recurring theme of this blog is being green. Today's news wires are carrying a story that is very exciting!! It seems that the city of Ann Arbor, Michigan is going to replace all of its street lights with LEDs. As we've discussed previously in this blog, the LED saves a significant amount of electricity (which equals $$$$$) and lasts approximately 10 years to a 2 year life for a regular incandescent bulb.
According to the story, the city expects to recover its costs of installation through energy savings in just 2 years!! This means that the next 8 years of operation (the expected life of the LED) will be money in the taxpayers' pockets. In addition, it will reduce greenhouse gas production in an amount equivalent to taking 400 cars of the road! Where is the downside on this? Why aren't all towns and cities looking at doing this?
Thoughts anyone?
In an article from the Associated Press, Hillary Clinton is once again discussing raising taxes, but won't do it publicly. Instead, her public answer is quoted to have been, "I don't think I should be negotiating about what I would do as president." I ask you, isn't that the point of a campaign, to tell us what you intend to do as president?!?!
Could it just be that Hillary doesn't want us to know that her plan to "fix" Social Security is to raise our taxes? She apparently privately told a voter that she would leave the current Social Security limit at $97500 of income and then add an additional tax for those who make over $200000. That sounds great except that the tax limit has been raised over the years and it wouldn't take long for the "gap" between $97500 and $200000 would disappear resulting in everyone paying Social Security taxes (14.3%) on all income.
In addition, our income (my wife and myself) would be considered upper class in many parts of the country, but here in the New York metro area (where we happen to have jobs and family, otherwise we would move) we are barely middle class due to the cost of living. Given that, who is Hillary Clinton (or any politician) to say that the "rich" aren't paying their fair share. If she wants to develop a tax based on the relative income based on cost of living in a certain area, then she might be on to something (imagine THAT tax return!). Or.....she could do what was proposed by the Republicans years ago and develop a flat tax.
Thoughts anyone?
So Mayor Bloomberg is in trouble from no less than the Governor of New York, who should know better!! It seems that His Honor came out against Spitzer's plan to allow illegal immigrants to get NY Driver's Licenses because he felt that it would be a security risk. Being from the state that provided licenses for several of the 9-11 hijackers, I must say that I can see some validity in his argument.
A variety of Hispanic organizations have attacked Mr. Bloomberg. One spokesman I heard on the radio said that it was "wrong" to not allow the Mexican driving the pickup to his lawn job, or the Hispanic woman who takes care of our children to not get a driver's license. I must disagree. It is NOT wrong, it is the correct attitude because a driver's license is not a right, it is a privilege (at least that is what I was taught before the days of PC). Not only is it a privilege, it is a privilege for CITIZENS of the United States.
Why would we not want to give them licenses? Perhaps it's because they are not in this country legally and have not earned the right. That's generally what the word ILLEGAL in front of immigrant means!! When you run across the border without securing proper entry, then you are violating our laws. You, therefore, should give up the benefits associated with law-abiding citizens (and legally registered aliens).
I am in favor of working on a plan to grant citizenship to those already here if they have established themselves as productive members of our society, but I'm not going to give them the rights due a citizen until they become one.
Thoughts anyone?
So as I begin my 46th year here on the planet, I reflect upon the things that I've learned. Despite what other writers may have you believe, I don't think I really learned all that I needed to know in kindergarten. I think that it is my job to learn new things continually. Here are some of the more important things I have learned so far:
1) I've found that Billy Joel was right, "just surviving is a noble fight." Coming out of college I left a good paying job with a reputable company doing something that I enjoyed because I felt that it didn't contribute enough to society. Over the years I've often wondered if I hadn't left that job, how would things have turned out. I've learned that having such a job eliminates one part of your life that you have to worry about and you can use your free time to "change the world" or at least make a bigger difference. By always searching for "the perfect job", you may give up the ability to do other things outside of work.
2) I've learned that my parents were right when they told me that you will probably be able to count the number of true friends on your hands. I have many good friends and am lucky enough to have a great deal of acquaintenances whose company I have and do value, however, there are about 6 people that I feel that I could call at this hour (1:45am) and say, "I need your help tonight" and they would come from across the country without question and they know that I would do the same for them.
3) I've learned that family is important. I've seen families that allow themselves to drift apart, to argue about petty things such as status and belongings, and to keep score on who did what to whom. They are, in the long run, very sad people who end up lonely. This past weekend, I lost an aunt and was fortunate enough to be able to attend a family gathering of aunts and uncles and cousins, literally from all over the country. Amid the mourning, there was joy at the ability to be together and laugh and remember and share. Although we hadn't all been in the same place at the same time in 5 years (fortunately a wedding), we knew we were connected.
4) I've learned that you must do what you think is right. Not right for you, just right. You must be able to look at the "man in the mirror" and know that you've done the best you can for those that you can.
This is what I can come up with on the morn of my new year. I hope that I will have more for you next year.
Thoughts anyone?
My thoughts and prayers to all of those touched by 9/11/01. If you haven't already, I would encourage you to read some of the articles regarding the day on www.helium.com. They range from the somber to ridiculous. Here is what I wrote:
"We remember because we must. Thousands of lives were snuffed out that day and we wish to honor them as we would any other significant loss of life such as a plane crash, a boat sinking, or an act of war. They were human beings who were doing nothing more than living their daily lives and they were slaughtered. The politics behind it can be discussed, dissected, and debated for years, but that doesn't change the fact that these souls deserve to be remembered.
The emotions behind the remembrance are most definitely geographical. I remember watching the tragedy unfold in Oklahoma City and I felt for those families and rescue workers. I felt their anger and pain while I watched. I will admit, however, that there was a certain emotional detachment that may eventually lead me to write an article using such callous phrases as "shooting an elephant with a BB gun" (but I doubt it). I was because I didn't see the smoke or hear the sirens or know someone who knew someone. That makes it more of an impersonal remembrance, but a remembrance nonetheless.
Being in the New York City area, I watched as black smoke poured out of the towers. I cringed as US Air Force F-16s roared overhead in a desperate attempt to try and keep anything else from happening. I was sobered as I watched National Guard troop helicopters pour into the city. I was scared when I listened to the chaos and uncertainty on my police scanner. We were scared and those of us who live here will never forget that.
As with all memories, the pointedness of the feelings will diminish with time, but they won't be erased. We must remember this day because it is about people who were doing nothing more than living their daily lives. It could've been you or me, and we also need to remember that the danger is still out there, so it still could be you or me, the next time."
Thoughts anyone?
Much is said, and rightly so, of those men and women of the emergency services of New York City that perished in the World Trade Center. They should be remembered always. I cannot even imagine the courage it took to try and fight the hijackers on Flight 93. There were acts of heroism throughout that terrible day in 2001.
As we remember six years later, I wanted to share my recollections from the other side of the river. I am fortunate to be a part of a specialty EMS unit that provides emergency command and control for EMS responders. On the morning of September 11, 2001, we were called to respond to the New Jersey side of the George Washington Bridge to assist in setting up a triage and treatment station for the victims that were expected to pour across the bridge in an effort to try and make it home after the attack.
As we gathered our equipment and personnel, it struck me that I was surrounded by well-trained volunteers from my community. There were college students, business people, firefighters, EMTs, police officers, and others that comprise this unit and they all left work and responded to the call. As our task force made its way from our town to its assigned point, people actually pulled their cars over (a rarity in the New York metro area) and waved out the window for us to go by. Some even shouted, "Go get them". On our way we drove by hastily assembled checkpoints, some manned by obviously off-duty officers who were wearing jeans and a t-shirt with their badges hanging around their necks and guns tucked in their belts.
When we arrived at the GW Bridge Plaza, you could see fire trucks and ambulances, three lanes across, bumper to bumper, sitting and waiting for instructions. Most of these also manned by volunteers. Some of them from towns as far as 100 miles away. All of them mobilized by the various mutual aid and disaster response agencies in the state. They all sat quietly waiting.
We were rerouted to a football field in the local high school where we set up. We were assigned a task force of 20 ambulances to transport our injured to hospitals around the state. Once we set up, people came from surrounding apartment buildings asking us to take blood (which we can't as EMTs). In addition, the high school opened its facility and made all its staff available to us. The man assigned to me as my "runner" (a person who literally runs paperwork from one officer to another to facilitate patient tracking), came to me and said, "Tell me whatever you need me to do." He was later introduced as the principal, someone who is used to running the whole thing.
This type of behavior was repeated throughout the day and throughout the state. In the Meadowlands, a huge staging area was set up and task forces arrived from as far as Delaware and Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, as we all know, most of these resources were not needed because those who made it out were able to receive treatment in NYC and those who didn't couldn't use our help.
The point of the story is, as we remember those who fell, we should also remember that today, just as on September 11, 2001...........we've got your back.
Thoughts anyone?
Shame on Al Gore!!! Read on:
Here's another example of do as I say, not as I do, brought to you by a leading Democrat! (Once again verified as true by my friends at snopes.com.)"LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU
CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST. HOUSE
# 1: A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural
gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by
gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average
American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and
natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time
we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the
national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or
Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's in the South.
HOUSE # 2: Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national
university, this house incorporates every "green" feature current home
construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms)
and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet
in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk
300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in
winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or
natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional
heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a
25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets
goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected
water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native
to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.
HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville,
Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al
Gore.
HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford,
Texas. Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private residence of the
President of the United States, George W. Bush.
So whose house is gentler on the environment? Yet another story you
WON'T hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or
the Washington Post. Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it's truly "an inconvenient truth."
Today I got an e-mail story about a kind act from the Postal Service. I checked it with snopes.com and found it to be true. Before I quote it, I just wanted to say that while I am guilty of occasionally complaining about junk mail, slow mail, or other things related to the Postal Service, I would like to note that it is an amazing service to be able to drop a letter in any mailbox around (although they are becoming more scarce) and know that the item I dropped in the box will be received by the party it's addressed to in a matter of days. All this for $.41!
When I read of something like this e-mail, it just adds to my wonderment at the men and women who are out there every day in weather that keeps me inside (too hot, too cold, too rainy, too snowy). Thanks to them. Read this and then do what you feel is right next time you see your mailperson:
Snopes.com can tell you the details on when and where this happened, but they did verify that it is true."Some of you may know that our 14 year old dog, Abbey, died last month (8/23). The day after she died, my 4 year old daughter Meredith was crying and talking about how much she missed Abbey. She asked if we could write a letter to God so that when Abbey got to heaven, God would recognize her. She dictated and I wrote:
'Dear God,Will you please take special care of our dog, Abbey? She died yesterday and is heaven. We miss her very much. We are happy that you let us have her as our dog even though she got sick. I hope that you will play with her. She likes to play with balls and swim before she got sick.
I am sending some pictures of her so that when you see her in heaven you will know she is our special dog. But I really do miss her.
Love,Meredith Claire
P.S.: Mommy wrote the words after Mer told them to her'
We put that in an envelope with 2 pictures of Abbey, and addressed it to God/Heaven. We put our return address on it. Then Mer stuck some stamps on the front (because, as she said, it may take lots of stamps to get a letter all the way to heaven) and that afternoon I let her drop it into the letter box at the post office.
For a few days, she would ask if God had gotten the letter yet. I told her that I thought He had. Yesterday, for Labor Day, we took the kids to Austin to a natural history museum. When we got back, there was a package wrapped in gold paper on our front porch. Curious, I went to look at it. It had a gold star card on the front and said "To: Mer" in an unfamiliar hand. Meredith took it in and opened it. Inside was a book by Mr. Rogers, When a Pet Dies.
Taped to the inside front cover was the letter we had written to God, in its opened envelope (which was marked 'Return to Sender: Insufficient address'). On the opposite page, one of the pictures of Abbey was taped under the words "For Meredith." We turned to the back cover, and there was the other picture of Abbey, and this handwritten note on pink paper:
'Dear Mer,
I know that you will be happy to know that Abbey arrived safely and soundly in Heaven! Having the pictures you sent to me was such a big help. I recognized Abbey right away. You know, Meredith, she isn't sick anymore. Her spirit is here with me — just like she stays in your heart — young and running and playing. Abbey loved being your dog, you know.
Since we don't need our bodies in heaven, I don't have any pockets! — so I can't keep your beautiful letter. I am sending it to you with the pictures so that you will have this book to keep and remember Abbey.
One of my angels is taking care of this for me. I hope the little book helps. Thank you for the beautiful letter. Thank your mother for sending it. What a wonderful mother you have! I picked her especially for you.
I send my blessings every day and remember that I love you very much. By the way, I am in heaven and wherever there is love.
Love,God, and the special angel who wrote this after God told her the words."
As a parent and a pet lover, this is one of the kindest things that I've ever experienced. I have no way to know who sent it, but there is some very kind soul working in the dead letter office. Just wanted to share this act of compassion :) dear friend — hope you enjoy it as much as I did"
Sorry I haven't posted recently but I've been preparing for a wonderful cruise to Alaska aboard the Radiance of the Seas (Royal Carribean). I am currently posting from their via wireless connection. I will post more in depth soon, but in the meantime I would encourage you to go to www.helium.com and check out some of my articles as well as meaningful discussions on almost everything in the world.
It's an interesting day in the world of politics. We have Obama talking about "muddy waters", Thompson talking about federalism, and Giuliani not talking about much of anything. Of the three, I'm most disappointed in Fred Thompson. While I enjoyed him on Law & Order, I'm learning that he was a better actor than a politician. He seems to be turning out to be a little too far right for my taste.
Now on to Obama. He is chastising Clinton and ignoring Edwards on the issue of lobbyists and their influence. I find his remarks to be somewhat refreshing and honest (two words that you are unlikely to ever see in the same sentence as the name Hillary Clinton). He talks about how it is silly (at best) to pretend that lobbyists will go away. They make their money and continue to thrive because they do serve a purpose. Just as there are lobbyists for "big oil" who are working to monitor and influence legislation that will affect the oil industry, there are also lobbyists who work for various non-profits around the country. In fact, one of the more powerful lobbies in New Jersey state is a lobby for the volunteer ambulance corps of the state. Who would campaign against the protection of volunteer ambulance corps?
Instead Obama seems to be leaning toward more disclosure and some restrictions on the "buying" of elections through excessive donations. I will wait to hear more, but Barak seems to be the most reputable and decent of the Democratic candidates thus far.
Now, my personal favorite is Rudy Giuliani. He is involved in a skirmish with the press and some members of the public who feel that all aspects of a candidate's personal life are fair game. I, for one, disagree with this. I would agree that if the candidate is found drunk in a gutter, in bed with a prostitute (or another person who is not their spouse), beating their children, or any other sort of illegal activity, that is news. Whether or not Rudy Giuliani is speaking with his children after a divorce, or whether or not he is a practicing Catholic is personal and has no bearing on his candidacy. I feel that the candidate (regardless of who they are) should only be forced to answer such questions if the person asking the question is also willing to go "on the record" with their answer to such a question and one follow-up of the candidate's choice.
Thoughts anyone?
One of the most dangerous candidates in this year's elections is Hillary Rodham Clinton. Her personal need for power and fame knows no bounds. She will make outrageous statements merely to be able to get the free press. As a Democrat, I cannot urge my fellow party members enough to select ANYONE ELSE as our candidate in 2008.
One of the big things that irritates me about her (and her predecessors John Kerry and John Edwards) is the haves vs. have not arguments. She continually talks about how the Bush Administration and his fellow Republicans have worked only for the benefit of the rich. She continually talks about how she will work for the middle class. My question to her is, how does she know what the middle class wants or needs? She is actually one of the "rich" that she claims benefitted most from the Bush tax cuts.
Here's my challenge to Hillary, John, and any of the other well-heeled Democrats who are going to claim to speak for me. GIVE AWAY (not put in a blind trust, get rid of) all of your personal wealth and start living on $75,000 - $100,000 annual income and THEN talk to me about understanding the needs of the middle class. At that point, you might find that an extra $20 in your weekly paycheck IS something to be happy about instead of complaining that someone else got more. Until you do that, shut up about the middle class, you have NO IDEA what you're talking about.
Thoughts anyone?
For the last several years we've heard from very rich Democrats (Hillary, Ted, John Edwards and Kerry) about how the Republicans are ripping us off and sending our government into an economic tailspin by cutting taxes across the board. As has been mentioned here several times, I've seen my federal taxes go down, so I don't care how much others' taxes go down, just make sure mine don't go back up!
Here's the other part of the story. In an article today from the Associated Press, it was announced that the projected federal deficit is going to be even lower than originally predicted. With just over a month and a half to go in the fiscal year, it seems that the deficit will end up somewhere near the $150 billion mark. While that is a truly unfathomable number to me, it is significantly lower than the $239.6 billion deficit of last year. Heading in the right direction, eh?
The REALLY interesting part is the revenue figures. This is the amount of money the federal government takes in.....FROM TAXES. Given the fact that Bush and the GOP cut taxes, given that the economy hasn't been the greatest, and given the fact that we hear how we aren't really better off than the glory days (?) of the Clinton era, you would expect that the government's revenue has fallen, right? Well guess what, so far this year, the US government has received $2.12 trillion, a new all-time record income!!!
That's right, just as every other time in history, any time a government reduces tax rates, the government's income GOES UP. It happens because people spend more money and lift the general standard of living when the percentage of their hard earned money going to the government drops. People who make more money don't mind paying more taxes as long as the percentage paid remains even.
So why do we still have a deficit when the government is pulling in record income? You would have to ask the Democratically-controlled Congress because not only did revenue reach a record, these fiscally-responsible watchdogs in the Democratic House and Senate (who regularly tell us that the Republicans are cutting funds to those who need it) have spent a RECORD $2.27 trillion so far this year. The leading spender, NOT the military, but the Department of Health and Human Services at $1.7 trillion so far. The military is number 2 at $437 billion.
Thoughts anyone?
Just a quick reminder today. Federal law requires that all cell phones, even those without an active service contract, be able to dial 9-1-1. This has an upside and a hazard to watch. The upside is that you can give a cell phone to an elderly or young family member to carry with them in case of emergency. It will only be able to dial 9-1-1 and it is no cost to you.
The hazard is the cell phone sitting around the house that is no longer used because you've upgraded can still dial 9-1-1. This means that it shouldn't be given to the toddler to play with because they can (and sometimes do) accidentally dial 9-1-1. While some agencies are able to trace cell phone locations to a specific point, most can't yet and that may result in dispatching units to an area in an attempt to locate someone who has dialed for help on a cell phone but won't speak to the dispatcher.
Thoughts anyone?
Having travelled to the midwest, I was able to disprove another myth of those who protect New Jersey's "need" for the "protection" of "full-service" (when was the last time an attendant washed your windshield, checked your oil, or tire pressure?). We've been told that we still have the cheapest gasoline around despite the ban on self-serve. That's no longer true. In St. Louis, I paid $2.59/gal for self-serve Shell regular (and a lot more in taxes per gallon) while here in Fair Lawn, NJ I would pay $2.61/gal for "full" serve regular (with the lowest fuel taxes in the country).
It is plain to see where the $.02/gal is going. Not that the extra $.26 per fill-up would break me (about $12 per year more), but why should I have to pay an EXTRA $12 per year to do something I can do myself just because the state legislators are being wined and dined by the NJ Gasoline Retailers lobby?
Thoughts anyone?
As we travel the United States this weekend, it once again becomes obvious how huge the United States is. Frequently we forget that we are really a conglomeration of what, anywhere else, would be several different countries. It is important to know the the 13 countries that make up the origianl European Union would find handily between the US East Coast and the Mississippi River. This just gives you an idea of how big a country we are and how amazing it is that we have actually kept it together for over 200 years now.
This puts our internal squabbles into a different perspective. It's educational to hear how midwesterners and/or southerners talk about those who live in the "east" (actually the northeast, but everyone seems to know what they are talking about). It's also interesting, although sad, to hear those who live in the New York metro area talk about the farmers of the midwest as though they are country bumpkins with little or no intellectual ability.
The fact of the matter is, these farmers here regularly operate farms that have more moving parts than many small businesses operated by those sophisticated easterners. In addition, one piece of farm equipment is worth as much (or more) than some of the houses sold in our neighborhood. These farmers regularly have to know about hydroponics, weather, finance, futures, biology, geology, and a host of other disciplines. How many snobby "professionals" can say the same?
Thoughts anyone?
I was just going over my year-to-date financial information and came across some interesting information. I've made about $900 more this year than last and yet I've paid $88 LESS in federal income tax. That's not a lot, but what other item has gone down in price (and yes, taxes are the price you pay for government services) this past year?
To compare, I've paid $295 MORE for gasoline, $134 MORE for groceries, and $176 MORE for my utilities. Also in comparison, I've spent $259 MORE in local taxes. The only thing that I've spent less on is my federal income tax. That's thanks to the Republicans and their "tax cut for the rich".
To be clear, I'M NOT RICH. I would have to more than double my salary to equal what an average autoworker makes. I would have to more than double my salary to raise my salary into what would be the next tax bracket. This, to me, is proof that the Democrats are full of crap when they say the tax increases only benefit the rich.
As I've said before, I don't care if people wealthier than me get more money back. All I care is that I'M PAYING LESS FEDERAL TAX THIS YEAR. I would thus encourage everyone to let Congress know that we want to keep paying less tax (even though government tax receipts are UP!!!) and have them make the tax cuts permanent.
Thoughts anyone?
