Voter IDs are about stopping fraud
This is regarding President Barack Obama speaking at Al Sharpton's National Action Network conference accusing the GOP of trying to restrict voting rights for black Americans and minorities. That is just ludicrous. Black Americans and minorities don't always vote for the Democratic Party.
The GOP wants voter IDs for voter fraud, which we all know happens. A lot of states already have voter IDs.
You have to have an ID for everything from stores, medical facilities, airports, etc. Having an ID to vote should be at the top of the list.
Obama's administration is eavesdropping on us in every way with the NSA, so he, of all people, should be for an ID to vote.
Social Security still baffles many of us
The Social Security Administration continues to baffle many of us, and the April 16 editorial, "Congress must stop old policy for collections," is nothing new for the many of us affected by the WEP/GPO statutes.
Another editorial could read "Congress must stop unlawful withholding of Social Security benefits through the GPO." The WEP/GPO laws signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1983 allowed Social Security to withhold money from our checks based on some arcane rule that says individuals should not "double dip."
If you worked in both the private and public sectors, Social Security is allowed to take a portion of your earned Social Security moneys, even if you have earned those magical 40 credits. There is an even more egregious effect on married couples, whereby they can lose their entire "benefit" if one partner dies.
I find it interesting that the two senators who stood up for those individuals affected by this garnishing of wages to pay back bad debts have steadfastly refused to do anything for the millions of us nationwide, mostly women, to return our fully earned benefit.
To quote Sen. Dianne Feinstein, "there is no political will" to do anything to right the egregious mishandling of our moneys.
Warning labels on sugary drinks
I am referring to the April 9 Times article "Bill to add warning labels on soda and other sugary beverages clears California legislative test."
Bravo to state Sen. Bill Monning, a Carmel Democrat, for continuing his war against the consumption of sugary drinks. As a student nurse, frequently treating patients suffering the devastating effects of obesity and diabetes, I'm heartened that Monning's bill, SB 1000, to place warning labels on sugary drinks, won approval from a Senate committee.
In particular, I'm very pleased these labels would not only appear on sodas, but on a variety of sugary drinks, especially energy drinks which in recent decades have increasingly become en vogue and usually have little redeeming health benefits.
Current research suggests that high-sugar drink consumption has increased in children; in teens, consumption of sugary energy drinks has tripled. Therefore, labeling popular caffeine-infused drinks like "Rockstar" (more than 60 grams of sugar per can) will hopefully have an increasingly eye-opening effect not only toward sugar consumption, but in reading food (and drinks) labels in general.
Sowell forgets important facts
In a recent online column, Thomas Sowell once again trotted out that black unemployment during the 1940s was the lowest ever, to prove minimum-wage laws are irrelevant to job growth.
However, Sowell's example is pointless because he seems to conveniently forget there were 16 million Americans serving in the armed services and, thus, not competing for jobs during World War II.
Also conveniently forgotten, the GI Bill financed college educations for millions of men and women who had served in the military during the war, keeping them from returning to the job market when the war ended.
After 20 years of low consumer spending due to the Great Depression and the war, the economy and the need for labor boomed as soon as consumer goods became available. Anyone who claims to be knowledgeable about history, such as Sowell, would know these facts.
Since Sowell frequently extols the virtues of Republican economic policy in the 1920s -- when there was no minimum-wage law -- why does he not cite the rate of black employment then?