How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
Opinion
- Details
- Written by: Anna Ravenwoode
After engaging in hours of reading, listening to economists from both conservative and progressive camps, and researching endless Web sites, I have discovered something important about being a taxpayer and how this is connected to my personal values: I want our government to put my tax dollars into economic programs that support my values. Allow me to provide some examples:
Workers: Amid the massive layoffs in America, I want my tax dollars to assist those who are experiencing the hardship of unemployment, or being underemployed. This is financial assistance to hardworking Americans who must pay a mortgage and feed themselves and their families. The unemployment benefits provided to these people will be used to pay for the “necessities,” like their house payment (which will support banks), rent (which will support the land lords, who also have a mortgage payment) and local stores (where people buy food). It is a temporary form of stimulus, to keep people from financially going under.
Military: I have never supported the Iraq War. So I want my money used to bring our troops home. And once home, I want them provided with the best medical care, GI Bill and any other veterans benefits they were promised when they joined the military.
Small businesses: I support local commerce. These people need loans to stay afloat or start a new business. They are closely connected to the local community, and bring tax revenues to financially struggling local governments.
Financial institutions: I support executive pay cuts, and our government paying off the mortgages of all workers who have had their jobs outsourced or who have become recently unemployed. If a homeowner qualifies for this type of program, there is a three fold benefit. The homeowner will not go into foreclosure and can keep their home. The financial institution receives the money which they can lend to small businesses to keep them open. The money normally used by the homeowner to pay the mortgage, will be spent locally on necessities: food, gas, utilities, etc.
Green jobs: Of course, the best way to stimulate an economy is to create permanent, well paying jobs, with health benefits. If the stimulus package creates these new jobs with federal funding, then businesses can later buy these operations and privatize them. When this happens, the taxpayers get their money back. But we only get it back when our economy improves. And it cannot improve without federal stimulus dollars.
Will the economic stimulus legislation satisfy my personal taxpayer values? It will address some, and not others. And it goes without saying that this legislation will put us deeper in debt. But after looking at the alternative to no federal stimulus, I believe this debt must be incurred. Without it, we won’t have an economy to save.
Anna Rose Ravenwoode lives in Kelseyville.
{mos_sb_discuss:4}
- Details
- Written by: Rachel McFarland
We sent a call out to service organizations in our area to help us achieve a monumental task. This year, we are sending all 56 Lower Lake Elementary School sixth graders to Alliance Redwoods outdoor education camp.
Three local Masonic lodges responded to our call for help. We would like to thank Masonic Lodges No. 183 (Clearlake), No. 199 (Kelseyville) and No. 146 (Ukiah) for their generous donations toward our sixth grade field trip. We appreciate their commitment to our children and the local community.
I look forward to rising to the challenge of making this field trip an annual event that all prospective Lower Lake Elementary sixth graders can look forward to.
Rachel McFarland is a sixth grade teacher at Lower Lake Elementary School.
{mos_sb_discuss:2}
- Details
- Written by: Andrea Anderson
The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (originally HR 4040) was passed as a result of several incidents where large companies/corporations were outsourcing to China which allowed lead to be used in the manufacturing of their products. And, on the surface, passing a bill to “protect our children” by mandatory testing of children’s products may sound like a very noble thing. After all, no one wants to purchase a product with lead in it which may come in contact with their child.
However, what the lawmakers failed to see is how the small business person and other pubic/charitable organizations here in the United States of America would be affected by this new law. Now everything from libraries, thrift shops, used bookstores and used clothing stores (and a host of other businesses/organizations) are faced with the uphill battle of how to approach/combat the problem when the price of the testing often far exceeds the price of the products they. provide.
It seems the only option the lawmakers have left for these businesses and organizations at the moment, is to strip their shelves of product. However, in most cases, doing so will force them into financial ruin.
And, I have to ask, do we really need this when the economy is already on the decline and small businesses/organizations are already struggling, especially when more and more are going to be relying on these small businesses/organizations as the financial times get tougher and the push for supporting a local economy gets stronger?
Not only will this law affect businesses it will affect general public. There are many people (an increasing amount, since the economy is worsening) who rely on many of these small businesses/organizations to provide items to their children which they might not be able to buy firsthand due to the economy.
Many of these shops are also run by charities who support local communities charitably often providing food, clothing and shelter. Clothing for children, more often than not. I have to wonder how it is going to affect them.
Could there have been another solution to the problem posed by these big companies outsourcing to China without regulation? Well, there was a day, once upon a time, not so long ago, when a company’s reputation was its regulation and screwing the customer was not only considered bad business but bad for business.
Not so long ago, when a company did wrong it would lead to the loss of customers, bad press/publicity, a criminal/civil investigation/lawsuit, boycotts and ultimately financial difficulty and financial ruin of the specific company who did wrong.
In my humble opinion, directly holding responsible and punishing the specific company who does wrong isn’t necessarily a bad thing and a much better alternative to punishing innocent people who have done nothing wrong.
It seems like this legislative approach is simply going to create more of a problem than a solution.
Andrea Anderson lives in Lakeport.
{mos_sb_discuss:4}
- Details
- Written by: Patrick J. Saunders
This is an obvious witch hunt to shift the blame from the sheriff's department.
Call Oprah, Call Ted Turner and CNN … we need to humiliate Deputy District Attorney John Langan and show him up as the backwood lawyer he is.
Patrick J. Saunders lives in San Diego.
{mos_sb_discuss:4}