Guidelines for letters
All letters must contain an address and phone number. Only one letter per week per person will be published; only one letter per person per month regarding the same topic will be published. Feather Publishing does not print third-party, anonymous or open letters. Letters must not exceed 300 words. Writers responding to previously published letters may not mention the author by name. The deadline is Friday at noon; deadlines may change due to holidays. Letters may be submitted at any of Feather Publishing’s offices, sent via fax to 283-3952 or emailed to firstname.lastname@example.org.
The case for a carbon tax
The carbon tax as plan to mitigate climate change is making headway. The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act is a bill introduced in Congress earlier this year which does just that. It places a gradually rising fee on the polluters (oil, gas, coal), which they in turn pass on to consumers. The U.S. government would then return all these fees, minus administrative costs, to American households in equal monthly payments.
This is an economically based plan because as prices gradually increase, our economy is stimulated to develop less costly alternatives, namely clean energy. And while Americans must deal with increased prices while we wean off fossil fuels, they are paid monthly dividends to help ensure they can afford the increased costs during the transition. Most Americans will end up with more money in their coffer, and low income households will benefit the most.
Such a plan is gaining bipartisan support in part because it is revenue neutral; the government keeps no money. And it is definitely economically based. Everyone would have an incentive to avoid emitting greenhouse gases. Studies show that in 20 years carbon emissions would be reduced to 50 percent of 1990 levels. It’s a win-win for all of us!
Throughout history, Socialism has been tried by many civilizations.
It appeals to today’s young adults because government interference in free market principles has not allowed them to experience true free market capitalism.
Overregulation, social engineering, picking winners and losers, sending jobs overseas and replacing work with government handouts, etc., have prevented all Americans from participating in an actual free market economy.
Consequently, Socialism sounds good to those who have been excluded from achieving their American Dream.
It claims to level the playing field between rich and poor, to bring about social and economic justice, to apply fairness to life in general.
This supposedly makes everyone “equal.”
Unfortunately, this “equality” also stifles creativity, invention, exploration, and self-actualization, because no one can strive for individual success.
The result is a population dependent upon government where everything is shared as it dictates.
Why do you suppose they are trying to put the population to sleep with marijuana, destroy religion, and erase our history?
A benumbed citizenry without faith in a higher power and no reminders of our previous successes and failures is easier to control.
Who is in control? Has any Progressive or Democratic Socialist explained who will be the “government” and how is it chosen?
Will we still have the rights to free speech and assembly, to protest their actions, to have a free press?
If you cannot imagine and create and expand your horizons, what happens to your pursuit of happiness?
Politicians, Hollywood, and high tech Progressives and Democratic Socialists who espouse socialism are wealthy free market capitalists.
Are they sacrificing their wealth and power for “equality”?
Socialism has never succeeded. Why?
Because the rich and powerful will still be in control and it kills the human spirit.
Socialism is not an answer, it’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
The incitement of fear has once again become a major factor in our race toward conformity and belonging. Following the 9/11 attack, our immediate response should have been to determine the circumstances that allowed that act to occur. If the CIA and the FBI had failed to communicate, or failed to follow up on the obvious clues that were reported, then these matters should have become our first priorities. Instead, funds became available to build vast new headquarters, and billions of dollars were wasted on a pretense of airport security. A major terrorist attack had already been made, and there would have been little incentive for Osama bin Laden, or any other Islamic extremist, to redo it. The point had been made.
The short term damage from the attack was horrendous. Long term damage, caused by those who continue to prey upon our fears, remains with us. Fear allows fearmongers to ignore all constraints on irresponsible behavior. The task of any responsible leader should have been to alleviate the nation’s fear. Instead, President Bush used the 9/11 attack as an excuse to create a false and unrelated fear, a fear that enabled his invasion of Iraq. Billions of dollars found their way into the pockets of Dick Cheney and his greedy associates, while a hundred thousand civilians and thousands of our own troops were sacrificed. Ironically, we had supported Saddam for years in his war with Iran, just as we had supplied and trained the Taliban. Saddam was not responsible for the 9/11 attack. National security agencies are of little account if their managers are incapable of hearing and analyzing the evidence provided by their agents and informants.
Wallace B. Eshleman