E-mail letters, Feb. 17, 2011
Uranium mill lawsuit
typical of enviros
Last week, the environmentalist group “Sheep Mountain Alliance” filed another lawsuit to stop the proposed Piñon Ridge Uranium Mill west of Naturita.
Sheep Mountain Alliance is a well-funded radical environmentalist group from Telluride, over 70-miles away from the proposed mill. The locals in West End of Montrose County, where the mill will actually be built, overwhelmingly support this project. Last week, a Montrose judge dismissed their laughable lawsuit against Montrose County. Now, they are off to Denver to find another judge.
This is how the modern “environmental” movement works. They can’t win on the facts or the science. They can’t win at the ballot box. Their lobbyists can’t even convince liberal lawmakers to support their cause.
So, they’ve hired high-powered lawyers to continue their fight in court. It doesn’t matter if they win or not. They simply want to make companies spend more money and cause more delays. They hope they can starve companies of resources and discourage future companies from trying to build new projects that don’t conform to their radical, anti-community agendas.
We all know their lawsuit is meritless. Unfortunately, the system is rigged in their favor. They know they can pay their mercenary lawyers a few hundred thousand dollars to push their agenda in Court. In exchange, their tactics will obstruct hundreds of millions of dollars of private investment. A great investment for them. They don’t care that the hundreds of millions will create jobs, tax revenues, and energy.
This is the real tragedy of the modern “environmental” movement. They want to foist their radical agenda on the rest of us any way they can. The only way they can do it is in the courtroom. Let’s hope good judges dismiss their lawsuits quickly – again.
Latest budget numbers
are simply laugable
Is it laughable or is it insulting that President Obama and Congress are talking about a $3.73 trillion dollar budget request for the 2012 Budget Year?
Our federal government just wasted $125 billion in FY 2010(according to the GAO)! For this type of government spending and waste to continue, it is insulting and downright wrong during these rough economic times.
The Republicans think that they are all smug and righteous promoting spending levels contained in the 2006 Budget. That is still way too much! Also, don’t buy the savings spin.
Oh, I forgot. The president, Congress, and our Wall Street economists believe we are no longer in a recession. Maybe in their world it’s that way, but it is not that way on Main Street, America, where small businesses are struggling and the unemployed are giving up on the job hunt.
Our elected government officials continue to ignore the GAO audits every year. Last October, I wrote about how our federal government wasted $72 billion in FY 2008 and wasted $98 billion in FY 2009. The GAO issued a press release in December about the wasted $125 billion. The Department of Defense, Homeland Security, and the Labor Department were the worst offenders.
Why are we paying taxes so our government can just throw it all away? Let’s get that balanced budget amendment passed in Congress in a hurry. Perhaps, a tax revolt would be appropriate if they don’t pass it.
Republicans don’t worry
about rights of most folks
The message from Republicans declares that responsible people have no constitutional rights regarding health care.
Last November Phillip Amonette reportedly shot a deputy in Rifle. Deputies shot back. Amonette survived after intensive care and about a month in St. Mary’s Hospital. Garfield County Sheriff Lou Vallario complained about the health care expenses provided by taxpayers after Amonette returned to jail, but said the St. Mary’s bill was Amonette’s responsibility.
Yes, but, to speculate about a man living in a garage — especially one who’s possibly going to prison — it’s easily imaginable the responsibility will shift to people who have health insurance.
One could also speculate a month in the hospital would cost around $100,000. Add to that collection agencies, judgments, lawyers, garnishments and still no payoff, the losses will become higher doctor and hospital charges and the insured’s premiums will go up.
I wouldn’t deny anyone needed health care. doubt Amonette ever once thought he’d be in such a situation. And he may have either money or insurance to pay for it. I simply don’t get why Republicans contend “irresponsible people” are more deserving of their constitutional right to refuse to purchase insurance while I must be constitutionally forced to be charitable and pay their bills for them.
It’s a simple fact that everyone in this country receives health care, regardless of ability to pay, but only some of us pay for it. Is that constitutional?
Republicans don’t mind that doctors and hospitals lose money, that patients need to ask for community help to pay health care bills, and people in general can’t afford the high insurance costs. They do like keeping insurance CEO’s well supplied with more money than any doctor or hospital makes. And they like taking care of only the rights of people like Amonette.
Deficit reduction shouldn’t
be top priority now
Supposedly jobs and deficit reduction are conservatives’ urgent primary objectives. Cutting the deficit at this particular moment will only increase unemployment.
In normal times, it is said that the deficit robs investment funds that would be better spent in private, productive uses. That assumes that there is a finite amount of funds available. Today there are billions of dollars sitting on the sidelines so the investment dollars are certainly not being limited by government usurping the funds.
It is also claimed that there is a limit to what we can borrow — these days from places like China — because we’ll end up bankrupt, or at least the funds we need under normal circumstances will not be available except at much higher interest rates. Today those funds are available at very low interest rates and the real cost to taxpayers decreases every day due to normal inflation — which is currently negligible.
So the question is: Why are we in such a hurry to drastically cut back spending when every dollar not spent increases unemployment? Why, in a time second only to the Great Depression, are we so intent on making things worse?
Our deficit build-up did not cause our current situation. The time to concentrate on deficit and debt reduction is when it would have the least negative effect on employment.
If what we do today in haste and ignorance only delays the day when the economy would be robust enough to really get serious about evaluating what the government should and should not do, why are we rushing toward the employment precipice to make things worse?
The big problem is out-of-control medical costs for Medicare and Medicaid. The framework is there to tackle the problems. Why is Congress not going to work where the problem really lies?
‘Birthday Bash’ would
disrupt peaceful area
Residents of Fruita and Loma need to be aware of a proposed “bash” being contemplated by one Bobby Willis.
The site is located off Interstate 70 and Colorado Highway139. From what I can ascertain, Willis’ plan is to make this a permanent site for continuous concerts occurring throughout the summer months.
If this is allowed to go forward, residents of both Fruita and Loma and even areas of Grand Junction will be inundated with heavy traffic, unwanted disruption of our quiet suburban life and long evenings of irritating noise.
Furthermore, if his plan is not to charge attendees, it will undoubtedly attract a few disreputable individuals who will not respect our privacy, not to mention our property.
I would respectfully encourage any resident in the area to call the Mesa County Planning Commission to express their concerns for Willis’ venture.
There is some confusion as to what Willis says and what he does. He indicates his concert or concerts will be free of charge. If this is true, how does he intend to pay the performers and why does his web site list the cost of tickets, parking, RV-sites, etc.
I sincerely hope residents are paying close attention to this uninvited and unwanted interruption of our lifestyle.
Private club could offer
In response to the Feb. 17 article in The Daily Sentinel about the Fruita Health Club complaining about losing members to the Fruita Community Center, and allegations there have been backdoor dealings by the city to cause small businesses to close their doors, I have this comment to make.
Building a Fruita Community Center was in the news for at least three years. It took two election periods to get it passed by Fruita voters and then it took a year to build. This is not an overnight or surprise endeavor.
Admittedly, this is a difficult situation for the new owners of the Fruita Health Club, but it’s because of their timing and not for the lack of offering a quality business in Fruita.
I was a member of the Fruita Fitness Center, now known as the Fruita Health Club, for over four years, and during that time ownership changed and changed and changed again. The facility became run down, there wasn’t toilet paper in the restrooms, towels weren’t being washed and made available during workout hours because the “washer was broke.” Equipment wasn’t being serviced, exercise class hours were changed or cancelled and that’s just the few things I personally knew about.
I then became a member of Gold’s Gym while waiting for the Fruita Community Center to open. I am now a new member of the Community Center and I look forward to my workout days again, plus I don’t have to drive miles to get there.
It’s all about the timing and not the quality, for the new owners of the Fruita Health Club have worked hard to bring their facility up to the standard it was when it originally opened several years ago. If the owners of the Fruita Health Club could change their program to offer more of a “personalized training program” instead of an overall generic fitness center, possibly that would appeal to those who are into an overall body building program. Fruita would then have a Community Center AND a Fitness Club, each offering what the other does not.