President Obama’s Budget: Some Honesty About Taxes — Finally

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/opinion/27fri1.html
In an editorial from The New York Times, written on February 27, 2009, an unknown editorialist discussed some of President Obama’s upcoming plans concerning taxes. The writer sought to uncover what he thought to be a simple fact: Economic recovery requires raised taxes. Witness to a very cynical stance on the former president, George W. Bush’s work, economic policies were referred to as “reckless” and deficits as being “dumped on the nation”. The writer recognized the need for “a credible pledge” not just a glamorous vision. Repercussions would be the loss of foreign lenders, sky high interest rates and a severely weak economy. Obama’s “blueprint,” as his plan was referred to, seemed enough to convince the writer of Obama’s plan of action as something more than mere intent to succeed. The editorial then went on to boldly state hushed tax numbers, showing the opinion that they were deemed necessary regardless of comfort levels. I believe the editorial’s target audience was to all. Its purpose of intent was to call “BS” on those who believed they were being unfairly taxed, as well as to give encouragement to others, almost as a big brother standing up to the bully.

To me this editorial’s main statement was this: Only 3% of American’s will be hit hard by this tax increase. Those 3% will now be dealt with like the rest of us. Boo hoo.

That sounds fair to me. I am seeing this one sided of course, which makes me a very bland source. I have never been in a position where I would see the difference in my taxes if I made over $200,000 annually. This argument does relate to my experiences somewhat though. As a fair person I do not see it as fitting to take from someone just because they have more than others. I do however think that we are equal. Why are we not able to have one rate for everyone? I can understand going to a store and paying the same percentage of sales tax on my $300 worth of clothing as the lady paying $30 behind me. Sure, I would like to get a discount for spending more in the store but that would be a treat not a right. Why is it so complicated? This would be the simplicity in me coming out and I suppose the need for a little research is in store. I agree with the editorial that we are going to have to sacrifice a little if we all want some improvement. It kind of makes us sound like spoiled children expecting something out of negative.

Nation's schools would get $106 billion from federal economic stimulus package

http://http//www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-me-schools13-2009feb13,0,2343348.story

The federal economic stimulus package that is in the works right now would contribute $106 billion dollars to the nation’s education. This money could be used for special education, repair and modernization of existing buildings, and to help keep teachers from being laid off. Schools would be happy to see this money although they acknowledge that it does not mean total relief. Some argued that while this is a good way to help out schools, it does not help stimulate the economy. In return to that opinion was the fact that money given to update schools does indeed stimulate the economy by providing many jobs. As of now there are 886 approved school projects waiting for the go.
I took interest in this article because I am going to be a teacher and this will one day affect me. It will also effect most everyone seeing as many go on to have children or can understand that everyone’s children grow up to be our future.