Congress and sexual assault
Sexual abuse is becoming an epidemic if it hasn’t already reached that level. At the current rate, there won’t be any male politicians, entertainers and ubiquitous managers and bosses remaining. It will then actually be a women’s world and probably a better one. However, this message isn’t intended to be humorous. Men who commit sexual abuse must be punished but like virtually all crimes, there must be various degrees of the abuse depending on the severity. Also, there should be a statute of limitations. Women who are guilty of encouraging this behavior by accepting money or other value (jobs) in return should also be punished accordingly.
Again Congress members have demonstrated their dysfunction, tribalism, greed and governing incompetence. Kirsten Gillibrand, the Democratic Senator from New York is apparently leading an ad hoc committee of Congressional women who will review and prepare a report proposing new standards for Congressional behavior. The report is said to begin with “members’ training”. Will the school be coed or separate classes for each gender?
Virtually all members have been college educated and have previous experience in government, business or education and they need to be trained how a man should conduct himself toward a woman? If that’s not a dysfunctional organization, what is it?
Martin Harris, Cape Coral
More: Give baby eagle the name Eddie The Eagle
Representative review
Our representatives who propose cuts to important programs that benefit "regular" people point to the need to reduce federal debt as their overriding concern. As a fiscal conservative, (by that I mean - pay as you go), let's look at a few other ideas to reduce costs and debt.
A basic government health plan for all citizens would save money. One universally accepted health card - One form for doctors to submit - One negotiator for better care and drug prices. Our businesses would be on a level playing field with foreign businesses that don't have to pay for employee health insurance.
Companies should use their savings for more investment - if they don't - tax them more! Treat all income the same. Why should people who invest money pay a lower rate on their "unearned" income than people who have "earned" their income? Hedge fund managers carried interest - come on people - if it's income - pay your share.
Make tax brackets more "progressive" (make a lot - pay a lot), as they were from 1932-1986, in the good old days. Like when sports stars, movie stars, CEOs, etc. didn't push for astronomical pay increases because they knew most of it would be taxed.
Tom Grier, Cape Coral
More: My blood boils over homes on Cape's old golf course: your say
Trickle down economics
Also known as “Reaganomics”, this term was used by President Reagan’s opponents to negatively describe his tax cuts of the 1980’s and since that time the Democrats have used it as a metaphor for any Republican suggested tax cuts.
So if “trickle down” is bad then “trickle up” must be good, right? Not so fast. Trickle up describes the saying we’ve all heard throughout our lifetime; “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer”. So, if money is “trickling up” instead of down, then that would suggest vast numbers of citizens (we’ll call them taxpayers) paying small but increasing amounts of money to an entity (we’ll call that the Federal Government) that saves it or spends it on whatever it sees fit.
While the Democrats have painted “trickle down” as a negative, one can easily see that it is not only better than “trickle up” but it is the only way that the citizens can keep more of their own money and spend it on what they choose.
The angry fanatical Democratic leadership declared the tax relief bill “Armageddon” and, it may be. The bill will create more jobs, more wealth, more small business formation and higher wages. There will be no Democratic power surge but rather, fewer of them after the 2018 elections which could be their Armageddon.
Max Christian, St. James City
Tax reform benefits?
Now that tax reform is a reality it's time for the wealthy and the multinational corporations to step up and make good on the type of investments in the domestic markets, increased hiring, and higher salaries. Will the tax reductions bring money and jobs back from overseas? Will the cuts really stimulate the domestic economy enough to reduce the deficit or will a predicted deficit increase happen? Let's look at history. The Reagan tax cuts did not work as predicted. Remember how things worked out after the George W. Bush tax cuts? We look to be on the same scary path as the last Republican administration, which forced seven or eight years of recovery. We can only hope that the wealthy recipients of this Trump touted "largest tax reduction in history" will respond with actions required to avoid another economic disaster.
Hugh Barclay, Estero