Click here for the original letter...
Ray Setzke tackles a comment by a Clearwater Beach Activist that objected to a new Hooters opening on Clearwater Beach. In his letter, Mr. Setzke quotes from te original article, "Self-proclaimed Clearwater activist Anne Garris has never been to Hooters, but she claims to 'know of its reputation.'" Mr. Setzke further takes Ms. Garris to task for her comments that while she has never been in a Hooters, she does not think it is keeping with the family-friendly atmosphere of Clearwater Beach.
As long-time devotees of Hooters, we could not agree more. There is a sizable contingent of people that believe that Hooters is simply a strip club with wings. Nothing could be further from the truth. N'er has a gold, floor-to-ceiling pole been spotted in in a Hooters. Seriously, the kids will see far more skin on beach than they ever will at Hooters. They are wearing shorts and shirts that indeed do allow a good deal of cleavage to show, but how is that different than seeing a 38DD girl in a 34B bikini top? There are arguments that it is degrading to women in general. But could the same thing be said of the cheerleaders for any pro sports team? What about the Miss America Swim Suit competition? Let's face it, there are men and women. They attract each other. Attributes of both serve to stimulate the other (and the same in New York, Vermont, Hawaii, California and Washington DC). The letter writer flat out calls Ms. Garris a prude and asks that she keep her Victorian views to herself. We completely agree!
Friday, July 22, 2011
Clean bill on debt limit
From St. Petersburg Times, July 22, 2011
In his letter, Mr. Balmer of Seminole, Florida states that the debt ceiling should be a separate issue from the spending cuts due to the importance of raising the ceiling. He states, "The spending changes and any taxing changes are too complicated a subject to be subjected to such a limit. The action of our politicians connecting the two is ludicrous."
I agree the issue is complicated, but I suspect the GOP feels they have to strike while the iron is hot. You may recall the number of stories immediately after the mid-term elections that hit upon this very issue of tea-party swept Republicans having to come to terms with the debt ceiling. I suspect the GOP feels they have leverage now to hold the President's feet to the fire so to speak. It would be responsible to not hold the country's debt hostage, but just as with any negotiation, one has to leverage the best position; otherwise no one would listen to the House on the issue.
In his letter, Mr. Balmer of Seminole, Florida states that the debt ceiling should be a separate issue from the spending cuts due to the importance of raising the ceiling. He states, "The spending changes and any taxing changes are too complicated a subject to be subjected to such a limit. The action of our politicians connecting the two is ludicrous."
I agree the issue is complicated, but I suspect the GOP feels they have to strike while the iron is hot. You may recall the number of stories immediately after the mid-term elections that hit upon this very issue of tea-party swept Republicans having to come to terms with the debt ceiling. I suspect the GOP feels they have leverage now to hold the President's feet to the fire so to speak. It would be responsible to not hold the country's debt hostage, but just as with any negotiation, one has to leverage the best position; otherwise no one would listen to the House on the issue.
Congress Should Do Its Job
From the St. Petersburg Times, July 22, 2011
In his letter, William Carroll of Gulfport, Florida espouses the idea that Congress need not create a Balanced Budget amendment to the Constitution but merely needs to pass a balanced budget. He states, "If Congress wants a balanced budget, it does not need an amendment to the Constitution; it simply needs to pass one.".
While we understand the sentiment, this is a little off the mark. While it is true that according to Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution that Congress has the power of the purse, nothing states that that spending must be balanced. In fact, Congress is expressly granted the ability to borrow money on the credit of the United States. For example, if a balanced budget amendment existed, they regardless of how it voted, Congress could never spend more than it collected (or forecast to collect as many states have implemented such a clause). Additionally, the US would be severly limited to provide for the common defense if in times of emergency, it could not solicit money similar to the way war bonds were sold during World War II.
While it is easy to look to the States as a model for balanced budget requirements in law, this forgets that if push came to shove, the States can go to the US Government for an appropriation that would be outside the budget--such as is the case when a Federal disaster area is declared after a major storm. The US government would have no sch option for itself besides the states. Does that mean that the States would have to pay themselves?
The US has to be able to borrow money for both short-term and long-term needs. By adjusting sources of revenue, it could certainly reduce the amount it needed to borrow. As it could by reducing discretionary spending.
In his letter, William Carroll of Gulfport, Florida espouses the idea that Congress need not create a Balanced Budget amendment to the Constitution but merely needs to pass a balanced budget. He states, "If Congress wants a balanced budget, it does not need an amendment to the Constitution; it simply needs to pass one.".
While we understand the sentiment, this is a little off the mark. While it is true that according to Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution that Congress has the power of the purse, nothing states that that spending must be balanced. In fact, Congress is expressly granted the ability to borrow money on the credit of the United States. For example, if a balanced budget amendment existed, they regardless of how it voted, Congress could never spend more than it collected (or forecast to collect as many states have implemented such a clause). Additionally, the US would be severly limited to provide for the common defense if in times of emergency, it could not solicit money similar to the way war bonds were sold during World War II.
While it is easy to look to the States as a model for balanced budget requirements in law, this forgets that if push came to shove, the States can go to the US Government for an appropriation that would be outside the budget--such as is the case when a Federal disaster area is declared after a major storm. The US government would have no sch option for itself besides the states. Does that mean that the States would have to pay themselves?
The US has to be able to borrow money for both short-term and long-term needs. By adjusting sources of revenue, it could certainly reduce the amount it needed to borrow. As it could by reducing discretionary spending.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)