Equal pay for women is another distraction by Obama administration
Equal pay for women is another Democrat issue that has no basis in fact. President Barack Obama has signed an executive order that may garner votes from the uninformed, but is simply another attempt to distract citizens from the Obamacare debacle, his feckless economic and energy policies and dangerous foreign policies.
When studies compare women and mens' pay for jobs with similar education, training and experience requirements, there is no significant difference.
Of course, if one simply takes an organization's payroll and takes the average pay for men and compares it to the average pay for women, there often is a difference because women and men migrate toward different jobs that have different pay scales.
Never miss a local story.
According to one source, women working at the White House only make about 88 percent of what men do. So, is the president guilty of paying women less than men for the same jobs? Of course not.
My experience working for several large companies is that gender never even enters the decision when making an offer or considering a raise.
According to Forbes, 71 percent of human resource managers are women. Would these women allow other women to be discriminated against in pay? I think not.
Last year the University of Aberdeen released research that proposes to head off the imminent catastrophe threatened by anthropogenic climate change by breeding low-methane-emitting cows. A more recent study from a different source posits that we should reduce the demand for cows, and thus their number, by forcing humans onto a strict vegetarian diet. I respectfully submit that these researchers are approaching the methane problem from the wrong angle.
Instead of changing the way cows internally process their food or changing our own diets, perhaps the cows' diets could be changed by converting cows from herbivores to carnivores. Taxpayers' money would be much more productively spent converting cows into carnivores than applying it to either of the first two proposals.
Carnivorous cows would emit very little noxious methane and would be the best means to eliminate the original herbivorous cows, which would be easy prey. The benefits derived from carnivorous cows would be far-reaching. No more herbivorous cows would mean many more plants. More plants would mean less CO² and more oxygen.
Carnivorous cows would also offer the means to a much-needed population reduction in humans by natural selection through the cows' consumption of humans, who, as every graduate of a public educational institution has been taught, are the root cause of global climate change and all of its attendant miseries.
Savor the delicious irony of them eating us, instead of us eating them. Is that justice, or what? The obvious solution to anthropogenic climate change is carnivorous cows.
Stephen H. Pulliam
Rich pay most taxes
A recent letter was unfocused and inaccurate. It blamed the national debt on tax cuts having been skewed to enrich the wealthy. What tax cuts? In the past few years, the rich had a 3.8 percent Medicaid tax levied on high income.
The top federal tax bracket was raised from 35 percent to 39.5 percent. Now he wants a 10 percent tax on the top 10 percent of the wealthiest taxpayers? The top earners now pay over 70 percent of the federal taxes (Taxfoundation.org). There is little to be gained by taxing this group (I want to know the calculation the writer used to show how his new 10 percent tax will reduce the national debt to $2 trillion).
Meanwhile, taxes on low-income wage earners have dropped due to earned income tax credits and other government subsidies. Almost half of this population is on some form of government subsidy. Our problem isn't taxing the rich, it's spending too much.
The writer then blames "budget impasses" on the lowering of our credit rating. So why has it not been raised now that the impasses are behind us? Would $17 trillion in debt have anything to do with it?
Rants are fine, but put some facts and thought behind them.
Wake up, Kentucky
Sen. Mitch McConnell was happy with the Supreme Court's ruling last week that enables people to give any amount of money to favorite candidates. That was great news for him, since billionaires want to keep more of their money and McConnell in the Senate can keep on making it easy for them.
McConnell had the help of the two most right-wing judges. He was the most powerful Republican in the Senate and worked so well with George W. Bush when he appointed those two justices to protect the Republicans on every angle. Also McConnell has been scared as all get out of Alison Grimes, so he believes he is safe now that he can call in as much money as he thinks he will need to win a sixth term.
He still has a problem though. Kentuckians have begun to wake up and see that MsConnell has not voted for them, but for big rich corporations. Voters have begun to realize that votes can trump big money when the people stick together and vote for Grimes.
Greed divides us
Have we the people of this country let a few greedy lobbyists and politicians divide our country to a level this wide?
The politician stood before a large crowd and told them of all the things he had done for them, and they answered with loud applause.
Not far away, in a broken-down shack, was a teenage girl in rags freezing from the cold, about to give birth to her first child. After the child was born and she looked into its trusting eyes, she broke down and cried as if her heart would break. She raised her eyes toward Heaven and said "Lord help us." The next morning as the sun peeped through the broken window, there laid two frozen bodies and two broken hearts.