Cut government student loans to lower tuition
Government continues to insure loans, allowing banks to lend money to students risk-free. Politicians allow students to acquire unlimited funds, and in response colleges raise prices.
It makes perfect sense for politicians wanting to be seen as pro education, but the economics are a catastrophe.
If we really want to help students, we need government out of the student loan business. If we did this, very few could afford to attend college at these inflated prices, and banks wouldn't be so benevolent with their loans.
If this happened, do you really think every college would shut down? No, they would lower tuition and/or cut costs. The market will determine a price profitable for universities and affordable for students, just like it did before government involvement.
Government continues to inflate the price of tuition (just like homes). Its policies help everyone, except whom it was originally intended; colleges collect tuition, banks collect interest, politicians collect votes but students collect debt.
Capitalism typically reduces prices through competition and innovation, but the opposite occurs when government gets involved.
It is my greatest desire for politicians to start enacting policies based on sound economics, instead of favorable politics.
Working the holiday
As a former federal worker with 34 years of service at the Department of Agriculture, the Fourth of July is a special day for me.
Since the dawn of our nation, federal workers have played a significant role in America's accomplishments.
The contributions of federal workers will be very much in evidence this week as Americans prepare to celebrate our nation's birthday.
Millions of Americans will check a weather report prepared by the National Weather Service, eat food inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and fly the skies kept safe by the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Security Administration.
Others will enjoy time outdoors in our national parks, travel with children protected in car seats inspected by the Consumer Product Safety Commission and visit post offices to mail packages to loved ones serving in the military.
My fellow federal workers and I are proud of the jobs we've done for America for 236 years. We wish you, the nation we love, a happy Independence Day.
Jobs that benefit all
Who can deny that in a recession people don't have much money to spend on anything but necessities?
Who can deny that giving tax breaks to corporations will not create demand for products or services?
Who can deny that a lot of new jobs such as those created to repair our roads, bridges, sewer lines, parks, etc., would put money in the wallets of workers?
Who can deny that workers then would have more money to spend?
Therefore, who can deny that demand for products and services must follow job creation, and without demand no employer will create jobs.
Congress must pass the infrastructure jobs bill now. Even GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney knows that sometimes you must spend money to make money.
Crossing the line
Contrary to the Rev. Jason Hutchinson's impassioned defense of the Rev. Ronnie Spriggs, both pastors are simply wrong to use their positions as ministers to endorse political candidates.
Spriggs encouraged his congregation to vote against President Barack Obama this November for his support of gay rights.
As a result, the Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United sent a complaint to the IRS that Spriggs had violated the tax code.
Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code provides an exemption from taxation to all qualifying religious and charitable organizations.
As a tradeoff, however, 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from advocating for, or opposing, the election of particular candidates. Violation of this tradeoff can result in the IRS revoking the offender's tax-exempt status.
So if Spriggs did advocate for the removal of Obama from office this November, then he apparently violated the tradeoff that comes with being exempt from taxation.
Other Americans respect and abide by the law. After all, the rest of us who support or oppose particular political candidates pay taxes.
By breaching the covenant with all Americans that the privilege of tax exemption will not be abused, the violating party effectively causes all citizens to finance his or her political campaigning.
If Spriggs (or Hutchinson) wants to endorse or oppose particular candidates in church, then each has the right to voluntarily give up his church's tax-exempt status.
What does anyone think the odds are of that happening?
Marilyn Schorin's June 22 letter, "Blame added fats," sounded like it came from a soda company defending its product instead of from a registered dietitian and Ph.D. nutritionist.
Turns out Schorin is the former senior manager for scientific and regulatory affairs for the Pepsi-Cola Co. Her consulting firm caters to large corporations with services that include preparing op-ed pieces.
Of course, she didn't want to share this conflict of interest with your readers.
Sugar-sweetened beverages are the biggest source of empty calories in the American diet. Reputable medical professionals are sharing the research that shows for each additional soda a child drinks, his or her risk of obesity goes up 60 percent.
Kentucky has the third-highest rate of childhood obesity, so parents like me need to heed their warnings and protect our children. Let's not let a nutritionist with ties to a soda company interfere with this important work.
Tweens Nutrition and Fitness Coalition
Sen. Mitch McConnell has finally done it and named his own poison ("McConnell plea to thwart EPA rejected," June 21).
If he thinks that "...conditions for Americans to prosper ..." make it OK to put ever-larger amounts of poisons into our air, water and food, then he is not only naive, he is more than a little bit irrational.
I would be interested in hearing just how much "... mercury, lead, arsenic and other toxins ..." Mc Connell would be willing to settle for in his breakfast or lunch every day.
McConnell would impress people from one end of this country to the other (particularly me) if he were to take off his partisan blinders and try his hand at compromise and/or cooperation.
He wouldn't even have to apologize. He might even impress a certain gentleman from Ohio who also has a tight-fitting set of blinders.
James H. Hazlett