It amazes me the number of loons on the Right that want to equate trash talking a sitting president on his visit to the city, in defiance to this Paper's policy, to a Pulitzer Prize winning political cartoonist who's material is simply a satirical look at the other side of the political spectrum, nothing different than the political cartoons on the right side of the paper do.
For those that keep yapping about Johnson being denied "freedom of speech", I need to point out to you that the issue is "freedom of the press".
The press has the constitutional right to print what they want. Many papers are slanted towards one political side or the other - for instance the Wall Street Journal conservative, the NY Times liberal. This paper actually affords readers a choice of two competing opinions. Just becasue Johnson has been fired doesn't mean this paper is eliminating the right side of the op-ed page.
As far as freedom of speech, Johnson can continue to express himself however he wants. He can write letters to the editor of this paper, stand on the street corner and shout, or start his own newspaper. NO one is stopping him from any of that.
RE: JUDY CORN DALE letter regarding Republican "no shows" for the Obama visit, in fairness Congress was in session during the president's trip so it would not have been feasible for the 3 members mentioned to fly back for this. Can't say about the Gov.
charivara - you're correct that the effective corporate tax rate is much lower than the statutory rate (though I have seen 24% not 13%) but here's the rub. The reason the effective rate is so low is that our 74,000 page tax code is full of loop holes that allow corporates to evade taxes, primarily by setting up sometimes complex off-shore tax havens in everywhere from Ireland to the Cayman Islands. The result of which is a large portion of revenue and some operations, are offshore instead of here in the US. The argument coming primarily from Republicans, but now being picked up by the President as well, is that by lowering the statutory rate and offsetting the revenue loss by closing some of these unfair loopholes, companies will be more motivated to move operations back onshore thus helping the US economy and crating jobs.
BTW a lot of small to medium sized corporations do pay up to the statutory rate becasue they do not have the resources to play all the offshore games, but we never hear about them, we only learn about the mega corps like GE that are getting away without paying their fair share.
timbo - If cutting taxes and modernizing our infrastructure is "liberal" than I wonder how far out of the bounds of reality your mind works.
BTW if you think it's easy starting a small biz from scratch and building it into a 7 figure asset, go try it sometime. Like the other poster, the more you type the more you expose your ignorance.
The president offers to lower corporate taxes (which are actually paid by consumers) in exchange for expanding the debt and deficits of this country. That what he is doing.
Had you been listening you would have learned that there is no new debt. The president's proposal is revenue neutral. The construction projects are paid for from a small (8%) one time tax on $1+ Trillion sitting in offshore tax havens. But what the heck, lets continue to have high corporate taxes, crumbling infrastructure and fewer jobs. That makes so much more sense.
BTW I have an MBA, founded two small business and manage a $1M plus portfolio. What's you economic qualifications besides listening to Glenn Beck?
This is typical of the Tea Party franchised Free Press Editorials. The president offers the Republicans a plumb - lowering corporate tax rates, something they have been constantly squealing for, in exchange revenue from repatriated, off-shore corporate profits to be used to fix our crumbling infrastructure, creating new jobs in the process. A Win/Win proposal, and what happens? The Tea Party/Free Press throws a pie in the face of the president.
And suggesting Republicans attending an Obama event? are you serious? The wrath of the Tea Party would come crushing down on them for committing that unpardonable sin and they would be condemned to political hell for eternity.
Cooperation and compromise are profanity to the WingNuts.
Nuclear Power may need a fresh look, but not the myopic one reflected in this piece.
First the big picture is being avoided here. We have to produce enough energy to sustain our way of life and our economy. In order to produce that energy we utilize a variety of methods. Most of those methods have a negative effect on the environment. Coal mining takes a sever toll on the environment and coal combustion produces byproducts like surfer dioxide that cause respiratory and cardiovascular disease, as well as green house gases. Natural gas burns cleaner but still has harmful byproducts and requires "fracking" a controversial technique that can lead to contamination of ground water.
On the other hand Nuclear Power has none of those negative side effects and has a phenomenal safety record. Yes storage of spent fuel is a legitimate issue, but the government built a modern safe disposal cite in Nevada - Yucca Mountain, that address the issue but politics has prevented its utilization. The NRC has always had a history of over-regulating since the TMI accident. The safety reviews cited in the article are just an indication that it's doing it's job. No one runs a perfect nuclear energy program 100% of the time, but the probability of you ever suffering injury or death from a nuclear power plant is much much less than that of commercial air transportation, which is safer than taking a bath in your bath tub.
Alternative energy sources are the best but they are not at the point technologically or economically to replace the 20% or so of our national energy requirements that nuclear power provides.
That leaves us with the choice of either continuing to enjoy safe, clean affordable nuclear power, and accept the one in a million chance there could be an accident; replace it with more dirty, unhealthy and destructive fossil power, or consume 20% less energy in our homes and businesses. For me that's an easy choice.
BTW I live one mile from an active TVA nuclear plant and I have never lost the first second of sleep over it.
Instead of hunting cranes, why don't the have open season on these zillions of geese that have become such a nuisance to property owners on the lake? We really don't need all these geese and their just as tasty as a sand crane.
I find nothing wrong with the J.B. COLLINS letter. He/she is articulating his/her religious beliefs and though I don't share them, he/she has a right to believe them. Of course we do not base our Constitution or legal system on religious law from any religion, but he/she is not making that point.
Further I think it is not inconsistent to oppose gay marriage on one's own religious or moral grounds, but recognize that all citizens should have the same rights including same sex marriage if they choose.