Superior, Wisconsin City Councilor Greg Mertzig wants to ban toys in Happy Meals and is proposing an ordinance to do so. Don't we have bigger issues to worry about than the toys in a Happy Meal? When will government over stepping its boundaries stop? Will you start banning toys in foods like Fruit Loops, Lucky Charms, and Cracker Jack because they have toys in the boxes along with high calorie counts? They too would have to be removed from the shelves with this logic.
Mr. Mertzig, weren't you the councilor who claimed you didn't have time to serve on other committees so you quit them while still collecting your full pay? That's $650/month or $325/hour. That salary makes you the highest paid elected official in Wisconsin. Is this what you conjured up with the extra time you had from not serving on those committees? The City Council of Superior will be the laughing stock of Wisconsin. This is government over-reach of the highest degree.
A few more questions Mr. Mertzig: You were the only councilor that voted against banning the K-2 drug but you support banning toys in a Happy Meal; why? What makes you think you have the right to replace parenting with legislation? Why does a very small minority trump the freedom of the majority?
Has it occurred to you that perhaps that's the bright spot in some kid's day; the fact that they get a toy with their meal? The home life of some kids leaves them in the situation in which the toy in the Happy Meal is all they have to look forward to and you want to take that away? Are you going to tie the police up to enforce this?
As a city taxpayer, it's my desire that you concentrate on tackling more important problems rather than the toy in a Happy Meal. The only thing that should be banned is Cracker Jack ideas like this.
To be clear, the issue is not the toy in the Happy Meal but rather the misguided idea that a legislator believes he has unlimited authority. This is another liberal "feel good" idea that is a blatant waste of tax dollars.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Friday, October 15, 2010
Political Correctness Run Astray
The truth is the liberal "feel good, do-gooders" that are promoting political correctness with the intention of uniting America are actually polarizing this country; yet they refuse to see it.
For example, my employer is already talking about the "Holiday Social." The previous administrative assistant used to call it a "Christmas Party" after I kept telling her that it's not illegal and that I don't attend "holiday socials" but I do attend Christmas Parties. After a couple of years of telling her that, and telling her that if she would call it a Christmas Party and place it in the written announcements as such, I would attend. She finally called my bluff (so to speak) and did it. Of course she never received a single complaint and only comments of thanks for doing so; I was committed to keeping my promise. I went to the Christmas Party for the last two years now and they were fantastic.
Unfortunately, she retired and her replacement refuses to do it stating, "She was told not to." I have my doubts about that but that's another story. Nonetheless, the political correctness of not calling it what it is so that no one is offended is hypocritical! What if I'm offended that it's not called a Christmas party? As a Christian, I do believe we need to be sensitive to others but I also believe that we don't have to be a door mat for everyone else to walk on our beliefs.
Political correctness intends to not offend anyone except that it always detracts from the beliefs of one group (or individual) to attempt to satisfy another group (usually a small minority). What could be more polarizing than political correctness? In light of the United States Constitution, where does political correctness allow for one group's belief to trump those of another? Where does it become acceptable to trample on one group's beliefs and traditions to favor anothers; especially when the group trampled is a vast majority?
In conclusion, what political correctness intends to do - unite Americans - actually has the opposite effect of polarizing our people. Just look at the politics of the day for proof. Could this country be more polarized?
For example, my employer is already talking about the "Holiday Social." The previous administrative assistant used to call it a "Christmas Party" after I kept telling her that it's not illegal and that I don't attend "holiday socials" but I do attend Christmas Parties. After a couple of years of telling her that, and telling her that if she would call it a Christmas Party and place it in the written announcements as such, I would attend. She finally called my bluff (so to speak) and did it. Of course she never received a single complaint and only comments of thanks for doing so; I was committed to keeping my promise. I went to the Christmas Party for the last two years now and they were fantastic.
Unfortunately, she retired and her replacement refuses to do it stating, "She was told not to." I have my doubts about that but that's another story. Nonetheless, the political correctness of not calling it what it is so that no one is offended is hypocritical! What if I'm offended that it's not called a Christmas party? As a Christian, I do believe we need to be sensitive to others but I also believe that we don't have to be a door mat for everyone else to walk on our beliefs.
Political correctness intends to not offend anyone except that it always detracts from the beliefs of one group (or individual) to attempt to satisfy another group (usually a small minority). What could be more polarizing than political correctness? In light of the United States Constitution, where does political correctness allow for one group's belief to trump those of another? Where does it become acceptable to trample on one group's beliefs and traditions to favor anothers; especially when the group trampled is a vast majority?
In conclusion, what political correctness intends to do - unite Americans - actually has the opposite effect of polarizing our people. Just look at the politics of the day for proof. Could this country be more polarized?
Friday, September 17, 2010
Democrats Lead Legislative Sham
This is my response to Herb Kohl's letter telling me why he supported the sham small-business legislation.
Senator Kohl,
Small businesses don't need loans, they need customers. Loans create more debt and small businesses can't afford it. Based on your voting record, I'm convinced that you have no idea how debt affects a business, state, economy, and nation.
Speaking as a small business owner, I can tell you that we need customers! You and the Democratic machine still don't get it. Tax cuts across the board will free up money that will allow consumers to purchase what we're selling. We don't want more debt, we want customers. Why not look at creating jobs through helping businesses create demand for their products and services rather than through credit? Your approach has never worked and it never will. This is a political ploy to save your party's butt in an election year.
Tax cuts across the board free up money that consumers would normally spend on taxes, thereby, giving the consumer more buying power. Business tax cuts free up money that businesess would normally spend on taxes and allows them to make investments in growing their business while consumers have increased demand for the businesses' products and services. When businesses grow so do job opportunities. Tax cuts fuel a two-way approach to jump starting the economy; one from the demand side and the other from the
supply (business) side.
I'm amazed that Kohls stores are still in business with the approach you always take. But then again, I'm forced to remember that it was a business savvy CEO that built the empire and not you personally. In other words you talk tax cuts but have a record of voting for spending, debt, and higher taxes. I can't wait til your up for re-election.
Senator Kohl,
Small businesses don't need loans, they need customers. Loans create more debt and small businesses can't afford it. Based on your voting record, I'm convinced that you have no idea how debt affects a business, state, economy, and nation.
Speaking as a small business owner, I can tell you that we need customers! You and the Democratic machine still don't get it. Tax cuts across the board will free up money that will allow consumers to purchase what we're selling. We don't want more debt, we want customers. Why not look at creating jobs through helping businesses create demand for their products and services rather than through credit? Your approach has never worked and it never will. This is a political ploy to save your party's butt in an election year.
Tax cuts across the board free up money that consumers would normally spend on taxes, thereby, giving the consumer more buying power. Business tax cuts free up money that businesess would normally spend on taxes and allows them to make investments in growing their business while consumers have increased demand for the businesses' products and services. When businesses grow so do job opportunities. Tax cuts fuel a two-way approach to jump starting the economy; one from the demand side and the other from the
supply (business) side.
I'm amazed that Kohls stores are still in business with the approach you always take. But then again, I'm forced to remember that it was a business savvy CEO that built the empire and not you personally. In other words you talk tax cuts but have a record of voting for spending, debt, and higher taxes. I can't wait til your up for re-election.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Some Voters Just Don't Get It
I'm reviewing some of the primary results for several states that held their elections on August 10th. Particularly, the state of Minnesota's race for Governor. Mark Dayton, pulled off a late night upset to win over the Democratic Farm Labor (DFL)-Endorsed Margaret Anderson-Kelliher but after looking at both candidates, there's really no winner for the citizens of Minnesota on the Democratic ticket.
The two candidates ran on different platforms. After being endorsed by the DFL party, Anderson-Kelliher ran on the common sense platform of making budget cuts to cover the MN budget shortfall. This is the smart approach, however, in the end it was rejected by the voters of Minnesota. When your personal funds are running short, do you keep spending? Heck no, you cut back on your spending and start saving to make your ends meet. What the heck are you Minnesotans thinking?
Mark Dayton said that he'd raise taxes on the wealthy which, in this case, he deems "wealthy" as households with an income of over $130,000. That's not much by any means, but again, it's Mark Dayton who was a dismal failure as a one-term United States Senator that voted for nearly every tax increase that came through Congress during his term.
Both candidates promoted the fact that Minnesota needs jobs. Lots of jobs! With an unemployment rate just slightly below the national average, both candidates had the same old usual song and dance that each would cater to businesses and come up with ideas and incentives to bring jobs to the state. So far, neither candidate has produced any tangible plans or policies on how they'd accomplish this. But I ask, how can you say on one side of your mouth that you'll cater to businesses with ideas and incentives, but on the other side of your mouth you want to raise taxes on the rich?
To understand how insane of an idea it is to raise taxes on the rich, we need to look at who the rich are and what they do. Job creators are usually the people with the money that invest into businesses that create the jobs. The same people that earn more than Dayton's $130,000 earmark. If you haven't figured it out yet, the rich are the job creators!
Dayton plans to create a fourth tax bracket for these high income earners. Using my common sense, I will call this tax bracket the "Special Tax Bracket for High Wage Earners" or "Special Tax" for short. These job creators are usually the people with a higher education, motivated from an early age to work and study hard, etc. You get the picture. Now if the job-creators are going to pay special taxes, where's the incentive to further one's education, or to take a financial risk to create a company or, for that matter, create jobs? There is none and, therefore, Dayton's plan is doomed to failure before it even gets off the ground.
Dayton's campaign slogan should be, "Love jobs, it's job-creators I don't feel for." Throughout history, there has never been a country that has taxed and spent itself into prosperity and it will not work for the United States or the state of Minnesota.
People of Minnesota, wake up! The insanity lies in the fact that this is nothing new. It's never worked and it's been tried over and over again. You're repeating the same thing but expecting a different result. That's insanity!
In my opinion, Dayton's Republican opponent, Tom Emmer, seems best suited for this job. Emmer understands that you need to provide incentives to companies and (the rich) to create jobs in the state. Yes, the rap on the Pawlenty administration is that he was a friend of the rich. Well who in the heck do you think creates the jobs, the poor? It's a fact of life, you need to lure the rich to your state to get them to invest there. Investing in your state creates jobs! Yes, it's the rich that create the jobs and yes we need to befriend them whether or not you like it! It's simple economics and it will never change. Expecting it to do so is purely insane.
There's a reason that liberals are usually non-business people. They don't understand economics and business and, therefore, they will tell you to vote for those that will tax the rich because it's only fair! That's what I'd call trickle-down insanity because they're preaching it and the people of Minnesota are buying it.
The two candidates ran on different platforms. After being endorsed by the DFL party, Anderson-Kelliher ran on the common sense platform of making budget cuts to cover the MN budget shortfall. This is the smart approach, however, in the end it was rejected by the voters of Minnesota. When your personal funds are running short, do you keep spending? Heck no, you cut back on your spending and start saving to make your ends meet. What the heck are you Minnesotans thinking?
Mark Dayton said that he'd raise taxes on the wealthy which, in this case, he deems "wealthy" as households with an income of over $130,000. That's not much by any means, but again, it's Mark Dayton who was a dismal failure as a one-term United States Senator that voted for nearly every tax increase that came through Congress during his term.
Both candidates promoted the fact that Minnesota needs jobs. Lots of jobs! With an unemployment rate just slightly below the national average, both candidates had the same old usual song and dance that each would cater to businesses and come up with ideas and incentives to bring jobs to the state. So far, neither candidate has produced any tangible plans or policies on how they'd accomplish this. But I ask, how can you say on one side of your mouth that you'll cater to businesses with ideas and incentives, but on the other side of your mouth you want to raise taxes on the rich?
To understand how insane of an idea it is to raise taxes on the rich, we need to look at who the rich are and what they do. Job creators are usually the people with the money that invest into businesses that create the jobs. The same people that earn more than Dayton's $130,000 earmark. If you haven't figured it out yet, the rich are the job creators!
Dayton plans to create a fourth tax bracket for these high income earners. Using my common sense, I will call this tax bracket the "Special Tax Bracket for High Wage Earners" or "Special Tax" for short. These job creators are usually the people with a higher education, motivated from an early age to work and study hard, etc. You get the picture. Now if the job-creators are going to pay special taxes, where's the incentive to further one's education, or to take a financial risk to create a company or, for that matter, create jobs? There is none and, therefore, Dayton's plan is doomed to failure before it even gets off the ground.
Dayton's campaign slogan should be, "Love jobs, it's job-creators I don't feel for." Throughout history, there has never been a country that has taxed and spent itself into prosperity and it will not work for the United States or the state of Minnesota.
People of Minnesota, wake up! The insanity lies in the fact that this is nothing new. It's never worked and it's been tried over and over again. You're repeating the same thing but expecting a different result. That's insanity!
In my opinion, Dayton's Republican opponent, Tom Emmer, seems best suited for this job. Emmer understands that you need to provide incentives to companies and (the rich) to create jobs in the state. Yes, the rap on the Pawlenty administration is that he was a friend of the rich. Well who in the heck do you think creates the jobs, the poor? It's a fact of life, you need to lure the rich to your state to get them to invest there. Investing in your state creates jobs! Yes, it's the rich that create the jobs and yes we need to befriend them whether or not you like it! It's simple economics and it will never change. Expecting it to do so is purely insane.
There's a reason that liberals are usually non-business people. They don't understand economics and business and, therefore, they will tell you to vote for those that will tax the rich because it's only fair! That's what I'd call trickle-down insanity because they're preaching it and the people of Minnesota are buying it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)