E-mail letters, January 7, 2011
Keep Social Security
for those who need it
This is in reply to letter writer Marvels response to John Salazar’s article.
Regarding the cutting back or elimination of Social Security, if Marvel is worried about rioting when the Chinese stop buying our debt, he should also think about the rioting that will result from the severe reduction or elimination of Social Security, and the associated homelessness and destitution.
In a perfect world, everyone would have a safe and secure job where they could sock away 10 percent of their income, and with proper investments, retire in 30 to 50 years with plenty of money. However, our world is far from perfect.
Our economy has become so unstable since the 1960s that many people find themselves secure one minute, and destitute the next. Look at all the retirement plans and 401(k)s that were destroyed in the last economic meltdown. Many people now do not have enough to retire on, and it’s not always their fault. Social Security needs to be there for those who need it!
I have paid into Social Security since I was 16, and I am now 50. It would infuriate me to see all that money that was taken from my paycheck and promised to me at retirement, just vaporize into thin air. Yes, my previous employers gambled away my retirement on risky investments several times, and I will probably need it.
We can solve the Social Security problem by designing it to be an “as needed” system. If someone’s net worth at retirement is such that they can get along fine without it, then they don’t get it. If someone is retiring at the poverty level, then they should get their full benefit. If a modest 1 percent to 2 percent tax hike is also needed, then I’m willing to pay it to help ensure Social Security will be there when I retire.
I once overheard a very well-to-do retiree say, “My Social Security is just my play money for toys and Las Vegas trips.” Why should this person even be allowed to collect it if others need it and he doesn’t?
M. Todd Miskel
Tipton shouldn’t worry
about civility to Democrats
One of Congressman Scott Tipton’s last sentences in his Jan. 2 commentary in The Daily Sentinel said “let’s talk.” I’ll accept that invitation by saying that I did not vote for him, to talk about civility in politics. He should spare me and your constituents that talk. That was a waste of newspaper space.
Many Democrats consider the GOP their foe and do not hold back in personally attacking conservatives as a normal matter of their discourse. I voted for and I expect Tipton to consider some Democrats the enemy of the Constitution and that their legislating has resulted in chaos and maybe eventual financial collapse of our country. As a general rule the Democrats will take every opportunity to intimidate, diminish, and call Republicans Neanderthals for wanting to adhere to the Constitution.
We sent Tipton to Washington to seriously take the fight to the Democrats. If that includes a little incivility, I don’t have a problem with it. I’m an adult, I can handle it. You know the old saying: “Sticks and stones………..?” Incivility, obviously didn’t do much damage to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. The republic survived.
Has Tipton already forgotten what happened a year ago Christmas Eve? America witnessed the most corrupt process since the Woodrow Wilson administration. Please,
I would like my congressman to keep in mind that we have less freedom today, thanks to Progressive Republicans and Democrats, than we had before we declared our independence from England. And that’s what I would like Tipton to address in any commentary he might write.
Mrs. Jerri Rozman
Hunters don’t need
more rules, restrictions
First, let me qualify myself. I have been a “substance” hunter for 60-plus years and have harvested deer, elk and bear. I have used every legal method for harvesting.
Now let’s get to the meat (pun intended) of the subject. Mr. Kendall followed a bear into its den. My thoughts are “So what? Braver than I am!” I have also killed a bear in a hole in the ground but it was because the bear had run from me and was trying to hide. I did not need to crawl in after it. Is it possible that Mr. Kendall’s bear was doing the same?
As to “fair chase,” what about the hunter that hides in the brush with complete camo and grease paint, then kills the unsuspecting animal as it walks by 10 yards or so away? And what about another type of hunter, who has been mentioned before? Using a spotting scope or binoculars, this hunter selects an unsuspecting “trophy” several hundred yards away, then collects the animal with a high power rifle and scope that can kill over into the next county.
What is a hunter to do? Be allowed to shoot only game that is at a full run away from you across an open meadow or hillside? That really makes for delicious, tender and tasty meat, what with all the adrenalin pumped through out their system, as well as being just a nonsensical idea.
Hunting is to go out, find, then harvest. I think the method used should be up to the individual hunter using his or her own moral discretion, as long as the method is legal. There are enough laws and regulations on the books. We do not need anymore unless it would increase public safety, which leads into the topic of let’s outlaw hunting all together, in the interest of public safety.
Man, do you hear the outcry I have created! Sorry about that fellow hunters. Just wanted to show how asinine that thought is.
Larry M. Head