If Debbie Bosanek is smart enough to be Warren Buffett’s secretary, she’s smart enough to know that the comparison between her tax rate and Buffett’s tax rate is a red herring — nothing more than a cheap political stunt.


The tax dollars and tax rate Buffett paid were legal and ethical, what the government asked him to pay, nothing more and nothing less.


President Obama is now entering his fourth year in office; if he doesn’t like the tax rate that people like Buffett pay, why hasn’t he done something about it?


Instead of occupying himself with political posturing and blame-shifting, he should have focused on fixing the tax system he thinks is broken.


During Obama’s first two years in office, Democrats controlled the Congress — leaving no room for excuses or posturing.


If Obama wanted to fix the tax system he thinks favors the rich; he could have, but he didn’t.


Posturing and political stunts are a lot easier than leading us to where we need to go.


In Obama’s final year in office, he should lead the country to a better place, as he said he would during the campaign.


He should not just continue to tell the people what he thinks will benefit his re-election.


Carol Corpus


Westlake


 


Required reading ?for everyone


Thanks for including the column by Thomas L. Friedman, “Behind the stubborn jobless rate,” in your Thursday pages.


This article lays out in perfect detail the challenges facing the United States as it attempts to come out of the past recession and provide jobs for those entering the labor market.


This column should be sent to every household in the area with students. It should be addressed to parents of students, with the challenge to discuss this at home and to partner with each child to work on skills, attitudes, attendance and study habits.


It should be discussed in assemblies, in classes and with parents, at every opportunity.


Each member of Congress should receive it and be challenged to meet these challenges.


This is serious stuff. “Average is officially over.”


Larry Hanigofsky


Green


 


Route the pipeline ?to Montana


I am aware of the pros and cons regarding construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.


What I can’t understand is why no alternatives to building a pipeline all the way to Texas have been offered.


Supposedly, our government is committed to making our great country less dependent on foreign oil, and we have proven reserves within our reach.


Why have I not heard or seen anything in regard to building a refinery in Montana?


I would think such a new refinery would be less costly than $7 billion, the oil would only have to be delivered across the border and we would be increasing our country’s capacity to refine not only Canadian oil, but oil produced in our own country.


I watched and listened to the president’s State of the Union address, took in all the views of the assembled members Congress and asked myself this question: Where would this country be right now if the current president and Congress had been in office on or after Dec. 7, 1941?


We probably would all be speaking German or Japanese, and not be concerned at all about oil or any other kind of energy.


John Hearty


Tallmadge