Consider consequences ?of implementing fracking
Because my hometown is Montrose, Pa., a few miles from the fracking community of Dimock, Pa., I follow the fracking debate with interest.
The recent comment by the woman who said she wished they would drill in her front yard made me wonder if she knows what a fracking well actually is. Perhaps she does, but I wonder how many don't. Possible water contamination is an important issue, but there are also basic quality of life issues that my hometown community is currently trying to deal with.
Fracking wells are not small; they are huge and can take up an acre or more (look up "Fracking Hollenbeck Gas Site" on youtube).
They are very loud, lit all night, stink and run 2 4/7 . They are everywhere. The ground shakes. Traffic has increased. Water transport trucks are on the roads at all hours. Small-town county roads weren't made for these constant heavy loads and have quickly worn down, resulting in continuous construction and increased traffic problems.
Yes, fracking may create jobs, but realize many of the drivers and other employees will not be hired from your community, but brought in from out of state. Google the increase of crime rates in communities that have become drilling sites; it may be eye-opening.
There are many in my hometown community who have benefited from fracking and are willing to live with all that comes with it. There are also many dismayed at what our once beautiful, calm area has become.
I understand the lure of money that is being offered to land owners, I really do, but I think it is important to completely understand what comes with it. For or against fracking, I urge people to get all of the facts about the possible effects of fracking on their community.
Politicians should address ?jobs for the broad spectrum
I would like to see the two presidential candidates tell the American public how they see the future for those Americans who won't have a marketable college education, those who only have a high school diploma and, last but not least, those who don't have a high school education. What with most of the good-paying non-skilled jobs gone overseas, that doesn't leave much opportunity for them.
What's that you say — go back to school or college? Well, everyone can't be a doctor or lawyer; so what are we going to do with the millions of men and women who will be in this situation? A service sector job? They would have to work two or three jobs to bring a living wage home. How will they fit into the American Dream? Maybe the "recession" will be over by then?
Obama cannot blame? anyone else for job losses
I read the Associated Press article in the Aug. 4 News about President Obama praising the 163,000 new jobs created during the month of July and new jobs have been added every month for several months. I didn't hear the president comment on the report of 165,000 people filing for unemployment for the first time this week, 5,000 less than anticipated. Isn't this great news?
New jobs are reported monthly, first time unemployment filings are reported weekly.
I believe the president missed his basic arithmetic class when growing up. I don't have the exact numbers for the other weekly unemployment files for July, but all were well over 100,000.
So now we have over 400,000 people filing for first-time unemployment in July while 163,000 people found new jobs. By my math there is a net decrease in jobs for the month of July. Does this account for the unemployment rate increase from 8.2 percent to 8.3 percent?
It is truly amazing how people, including the president, play the numbers to their supposed advantage. I believe the average American is smarter and will not be easily deceived that there really is a growth in employment.
Obama has been in office for 3 1/2 years and can no longer blame everything on the previous administration or the current Congress.
How many bills have been sent to the Senate from the House that Harry Reid refuses to bring to the floor for discussion and vote, plus not passing a budget for 3 years?
It is time for a change come the November elections.
Barbara J. Campagna
Congress' poor showing ?may be a blessing in disguise
The polarized 112th Congress is considered the worst and most inept in history. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or the recent newspaper headline for most Americans to know that Congress is badly broken. Then again, just maybe it isn't broken.
I have always been told that we should look for the silver lining in every cloud. To me the fact that Congress has passed only 127 bills during this session is a blessing. This means that the government will be able to interfere in my life a little less and that it has grown at a smaller rate.
Now all of our members of Congress, especially the conservatives, running for re-election can look their constituents in the eye and truthfully say they have helped slow the growth of our government by passing little legislation.
This is opposed to what normally happens when members of Congress speak of all the legislation they "personally" passed to make their constituents lives better.
So I salute all our leaders in Congress, who, through selfless inaction, have helped to make this Congress a huge success and not a failure at all.
Michael K. Hall
It is time for a discussion? about individual tax reform
Let's start a national discussion about tax reform for individuals. I am saying that with a straight face. Anyone with average intelligence should be able to figure out what his/her taxes should be without tax software or an accountant.
We Americans, across the economic spectrum, need to discuss what is income (meaning wages – both hourly and annual salary, bonuses, interest, dividends, capital gains, etc). Define it all and then evaluate what should be included and should the different streams be calculated differently. I think not.
Next list all potential deductions (mortgage interest, charitable donations, medical expenses, etc.). The first question to consider is should any deductions allowed. If so, which ones and why?
Personally, I don't think there should be a single flat tax, but a graduated one with three or four levels. It should be progressive so that the income up to the first level is taxed for everyone at a lower rate than then those earning more in the next two to three levels of income.
Doesn't that simplify it sufficiently? If not, start the dialogue.
Sandra W. MyersWilliamsville