State Rep. Tim Larson, a Democrat who represents East Hartford and South Windsor, has proposed designating the last Saturday of each October as Halloween in Connecticut instead of the traditional Oct. 31, citing both parents' concerns and economic issues.
Larson said in a news release that he doesn't expect the General Assembly to take up the issue this year, when Halloween falls on a Monday. But, he said, he would like to have his proposal considered in 2012.
"Halloween is a fun night for the whole family, but not so much when you have to race home from work, get the kids ready for trick or treating, welcome the neighborhood children, and then try to get everyone in bed for an early school and work morning," Larson said. "Halloween has also become one of the top holidays for retailers selling candy, decorations, costumes and general party supplies. Jobs are created by this holiday, so let's make it a little more fun and safe for everyone, and create some jobs too."
While Halloween is not an official state or federal holiday, Larson said that parents of young children have complained to him about weeknight trick or treating and would prefer a weekend day. Saturday allows for events during the day as well as an earlier start to trick or treating, Larson said.
"This would be good for the economy and make Halloween a more family-friendly event every year," he said. "Everyone looks forward to Halloween a little more when it falls on the weekend."
Mr. Eleveld, your math skills are awesome. But I'd better get my flu shot, since my employer won't be subject to the new sick pay law.
Now consider Obamacare that is supposed to apply also to the 50 person employer at a penalty cost of $1-2K per employee. The specifics are still unknown. Change the 2.5% to $1K or $2K per employee from above and you have a per hour cost of $58 to $106 per hour for that 50th employee plus plus plus.... Now you can understand why no one wants to hire. The unknowns make for a difficult business environment, and that is the BIG reason people are wary of hiring anyone! Consider yourself when your life is in flux, you pull back. Businesses are just larger people and they behave the same they pull back. Also, Yes get that flu shot.... Maria you can find an employer that offers health insurance. No one is MAKING you work there, are they? Is the boss holding you hostage? Is your skill set so narrow that this is the only job in the area you are qualified for? Yes the beauty of a free market you can work anywhere granted the market is more limited, but the above explained that. @Jim G it is a logical extension of the rationale for why jobs are vacant... Remember Larson said his proposal will equal more jobs.... and Maria kinda opened the Obamacare/healthcare issue.
Please don't give them ideas.... :-)
This group has a valid gripe, but that gripe is to all our national representatives that brought $5 debit charges, higher bank costs, the mortgage crisis, and I can go on. Do not get angry about people using the rules to make a lot of money, Solyndra come to mind, the mortgage GES's. I can go on. The truth is solutions really are simple, complicated solutions are usually not real solutions. A 10% or 15% flat tax is an easy simple clean solution. Add the 1,000's of pages of text and its not simple, but it make attorneys, accountants and financial advisers happy, and the wealthy. Remember Congress is stock full of millionaires on both sides!
In another comment, the commenter referred to "our health care." This is a very interesting comment. The commenter didn't say "my health care." She said "our". Perhaps it was just the wrong choice of words. Because some people in this country do not have health care. They can't afford it. There is no "our" for them. A wider perspective is needed.
Maria, if you want to believe that child labor was solved by government, go right on believing it. It was solved by our country going through the normal stages of industrialization all industrialized nations go through. When there was Child labor it existed because it needed to. Either the children worked, or the family starved. This had nothing to do with government or evil corporations and neither did it's abolition. And talk about "slogans?" Your gubmint Universities are the are the biggest slogan factories. The government constantly gives students grants and loans (and now will forgive virtually all student loans), and then we all wonder why tuitions are so high? Maybe you should ask those gubmint economics professors to explain supply and demand. That government which governs least governs best and this has always been the case. More government always leads to more oppression, ask anyone who's ever lived in a communist hell.
In your vein... I thought all people named Steve were dead and everyone named Marriott lived in a hotel.
As families earned more because productivity increased and people like Henry Ford could pay more, he did so because a higher wage usually equates to a higher quality employee. This in turn increases productivity, and the cycle continues to IMPROVE. Families made enough money so that kids did not have to work. Kids could go to school, because a higher education also equates to higher wages. Government is not an invisible hand. Government consistently modifies economic behavior temporarily to the benefit of the few, and those few are wrongly called capitalists. You just need to go back 40 years to see the underpinnings of the GM/Chrysler bailouts... Note Ford did not need one. Why? It decided for competitive and quality reasons [capitalism] to make systemic changes that positioned Ford well for the recession. Government is all about backing friends... to think otherwise is naive. That makes capitalism's invisible hand not work, and usually backs those that are not strong. Think of capitalism as Darwinian law of the jungle. The strong survive the weak get eaten. What is left continues to grow stronger and more productive for the benefit of many more.
Maria, If you believe government is the end all to all our problems, you really can consider moving. The most prosperous countries are those with the least regulation and governmental interference. Hong Kong had a phenomenal economic engine, pre-china. With low regulations, ease of doing trade, and low taxes. Countries with the greatest government involvement are those most economically challenged, and they also have the highest levels of oppression, government largess, giveaways, and hunger. France has poor employment prospects, and a government running from one crisis to another. Russia is zooming back to communism. Much of Africa is a Marxist/Leninist haven with lots of starving people. North Korea where there are no dogs, cats and birds based upon some accounts. South Korea is flourishing mightily relative to the Government controlled North. Be careful of what you ask for, you might just get it. Consider things will really work, not what is supposed to happen.
There are many good businesses run by ethical, honorable, hard-working people. But there also have been and continue to be predatory businesses. How else do you explain Wall Street firms who took bailout money from U.S. taxpayers and then turned around and gave that bailout money to their top employees in the form of large bonuses. And how much of these firms so-called financial recovery is due to the Federal Reserve purchasing bad financial instruments from these firms (getting these bad investments off their books) and the firms borrowing funds from the Fed at 0% interest and using those funds to buy treasury bills with a return of 4%. Only in the most egregious cases have shareholders been able to sue these firms. I don't even blame the individuals involved. It has become sort of a game, a sport. Without a referee. I think the role of government is to be that referree.
As for bailouts, that is crony capitalism at its finest. So was AIG, GM, Chrysler, Many of the worst banks, and the banks that did not need a bailout got the money anyways. The Government through the Fed is playing referee. You don't like it do you? The government started the mess with being a mortage referee. You see there is the error in your comment... the referee. The referee in capitalism is the purchaser of the goods and services. It is not the governent. Government backs buddies of both parties. The purchaser or consumer can make a decision for themselves. You do every time you spend a $1 you vote for something. I vote to buy gas and liquor in MA when I can becasue of CT taxes. I vote to buy produce in one store because the price vs quality to ME is better. Make me buy only in one place with no competition and the price will go up, and the quality down. You can have a referee that picks the winners and losers, and the result is we are ALL losers in economic terms. Prices will rise, quality will go down, and choice will disappear. Capitalism is not perfect, but nothing works better for almost everyone!
Here's hoping the voters of Windsor give you a lot more reading time next week.
I actually pointed out that child labor was diminishing as sited, and that it still continues to this day around the world. I am not saying no government regulation is needed, however businesses run by people will always self regulate faster because a poor reputation takes many years of no sales to earn back. Transparency and ease of information helps the consumer make good decisions for their own benefit. A poorly designed product will cause long term business harm, and allow competitors to move in. Unless as you must believe every business is out to harm people some how and in some way. Your 2500 year old comment begs the question: what was debunked? My thoughts are original and not regurgitated pablum from some mysterious source as you might suggest. The voters will choose who they see fit... and hopefully that will be the correct choice for all. Are you Socialist Worker? You are sounding like it.
Well, seems little brother Tim Larson had a little more plans for changing Halloween to a Saturday, to help out BIG BROTHER "John Larson" check this article out. http://opiningquill.wordpress.com/2011/10/25/a-spooky-halloween-thought-or-nuts-falling-from-family-tree/
@Jim G, you dismiss the idea that unrestrained government leads to socialism, even though "unrestrained government" is a defacto definition of it. Here are two books that never made your reading list, both by F.A. Hayek I'm sure your elite education never included; The first, "The Fatal Conceit," describes you to a T. But, you'll have to read it to see if this is an insult or not. In short, you put your faith in the guidance of divine superhumans (like all Democratic social planners), not individual rights, spontaneous economic order and freedom. The second, the Road to Serfdom is a treatise on the theory that more government invariably leads to socialism, communism and totalitarianism that won a Nobel prize. Allan Bock once said that it was " the natural order of things is for government to advance and liberty to recede." He was right. Seldom do governments change direction and give more liberty to citizens without less than a revolution taking place like what happened in 1776. Have all the faith you want in government, but remember once it's gone too far, there becomes a point where it becomes too late to change it's course.