Headline News
 Reuters - President Barack Obama said Friday he saw "enormous hurdles" ahead in Middle East peace negotiations, but said it was a risk worth taking and the United States would remain engaged even if talks break down.
 Reuters - The murders of 25 people by suspected drug hitmen on the U.S.-Mexico border on Thursday was the bloodiest day in almost three years in an area gripped by an escalating drug war, officials said on Friday.
 Reuters - The U.S. government said it was resuming work on controversial human embryonic stem cell research on Friday after an appeals court ruled in its favor.
 AP - Far, far away from a Chilean mine where 33 trapped men struggle to cope as they await rescue, 50 Spanish miners are also deep in the earth's bowels — but by their own choice.
 AFP - An impassioned President Barack Obama Friday warned Americans not to turn on one another over religion amid a spate of rows over Islam in US society, nine years after the September 11 attacks.
|
 |
 |
 |
|
Some here have said we shouldn't oppose legislation because of the ripple effects the legislation will cause. Specifically, it has been said that to oppose a proposed state law that would force daycare owners to join a labor union if they accept children of parents who receive state aid is "scare tactic". Really?
I opposed "sin" taxes on cigarettes became it opens the door for all sorts of other behavior modification taxes. The sky's the limit. We've all heard rumblings that a soda tax is the next sin tax. Like the cigarette tax, the one that paved the way, this tax is "for our own good" and meant to force us to drink less soda. Horse hockey. It is designed to increase tax revenue. Now, the mayor of Philly is proposing a 2 cent per ounce tax on sweet drinks. Tea, soda, energy drinks ... even chocolate milk.
[url]http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/20100304_Nutter_proposes_2-cent-per-ounce_sweet-drink_tax.html[/url]
Two cents per ounce is a pretty steep tax. Who will it hurt the most? The poor and middle class. Who will it help? Politicians. Who will it not affect at all? The wealthy.
When politicians try to do too much too quickly they run into the kind of public outcry the dems are facing now with health care destruction. For example: Had the dems sat down at the beginning and put together a bill to create anything close to what we have now for entitlement programs they would have been run out of town on a rail. But they were smarter than the dems we have now -- they got their foot in the door, then the ankle, then the calf, then the leg. Getting the foot in the door is the hardest part. It gets voters used to the idea and it really isn't that bad when viewed with blinders on. After the foot is in, though, the rest comes easier. How can you oppose the ankle when you have allowed the foot? And isn't the calf a logical next step? I mean, you have already agreed that we should have the foot and ankle ...
Beware the foot, people, because there is always a leg attached and often the body that follows is a big brutish bully that you won't like very much. When considering legislation, we should ALWAYS ask what it is likely to lead to. It is our duty as voters. That foot in the door is the foot of the person who will someday be sitting our kids and grandkids.
 | |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
