I don't think it will affect your poor widdle taxes. I think if Rwanda can manage, so can the US. And in any event -- I don't see any proposal out for a second official language at the federal level.
On the contrary, Newt proposes that the government be in the business of having people speak English. > > Dana wrote: > > um... had I bothered with my high school transcripts (from France) > they would have been translated at my expense. Not the taxpayer's. > > Yes, but that's because English is the official language. If we > changed that to add in other languages then I would assume that the > government would have to recognize any documents in any of the > official languages. > > Extend that to business and the same would be true. Of course this > wouldn't be enforced for very small local businesses, but for > corporations you'd have to hire and couldn't say, "must speak > English", you'd instead say "must speak English, Spanish, or > Canadian" > (yah, I'm from Minnasoootah ya know, so I can speak Canadian, eh) > > For all these reasons I'd say we should have only 1 official language > because the real question here is, "Are you willing to have your > federal taxes raised 5% (and 3% every year thereafter) to pay for > bilingualism?" > > I'm not. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Macromedia ColdFusion MX7 Upgrade to MX7 & experience time-saving features, more productivity. http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion?sdid=RVJW Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:233730 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
