Email letters, Jan, 3, 2013
Reducing job hours to avoid insurance costs hurts workers
How many of us are facing the new year unemployed or partially employed? How many of us have had our hours taken away, for our employers to avoid providing insurance for us, per Obamacare? How many of us continue to struggle more every day, as our employment, safety and security are taken away from us? We are served with more desperation, courage and faith than any of us have faced before.
Just when we hoped it was all getting better, my employer has reduced my hours. Many of us have faced either being reduced or let go. My employer cites too much financial responsibility, per our government’s requirements to provide medical insurance for employees.
That responsibility now falls on us all independently. I am now facing two or three part-time jobs just to survive.
Stories of my grandfather salvaging scraps from cars in the Great Depression just to provide food for his family … Share your stories, as I have. I am speaking out, and I hope more of us can speak out. Please let our stories be heard.
Best wishes and blessings to us all. Happy New Year.
Funnies next to commentary page provide a good laugh
On Jan. 2 putting the Commentary page (4A) next to the Cartoon page (5A) was quite appropriate.
Tom Purcell had a column called “Pork-barrel spending lards up aid bill for Sandy’s victims.”
I couldn’t decide if I should be upset after reading it and was amused when I saw the column next to the comics.
Aid for Sandy victims shows irony of conservative values
Amazing! There was a big hullabaloo because the House didn’t act on assistance for Sandy victims. I wonder why the victims are entitled to that assistance. It is primarily for property cleanup and rebuilding. The justification is that they are citizens, it was a natural disaster and the government should be there to help.
Individuals are struck with medical problems daily that they didn’t cause and also natural occurrences. This affects people very personally. What is more important than one’s life? Certainly more important than property that can be repaired or replaced.
Conservatives say that you are on your own when it comes to such medical situations even though you may go bankrupt trying to deal with your misfortune. You should have had insurance in amounts sufficient to cover any eventuality. Government has no role. You should have been more responsible to look out for your own life.
When lives are at issue, government has no role. When property is at issue, the government has a role because citizens’ “wellbeing” is involved? What is government for if not to protect its citizens’ ... property?
Should citizens affected negatively by Sandy have lived so close to the water? Should they have had adequate insurance to take care of whatever might happen?
Isn’t it strange how some politicians are first in line for some kinds of government financial support and show their concern but individual citizens with medical problems are on their own? Not only is it not the problem of government but it is also not even the government’s concern to help organize medical insurance that citizens would pay for themselves.
Ah! I know. Big natural disasters offer the opportunity for politicians to display their empathy to a wide audience. Individuals with problems, not so much.
Leaders urged not to strip gun owners of rights
A copy of a letter that I sent to members of Congress and the president is below. ALL gun owners need to protect their rights and let our leaders know how we feel about their wanting to control the weapons that we own by severe restrictions and complex registrations that will only be followed by the law-abiding, not the criminals. Please contact your elected officials to let them know there are better ways to attempt to stop tragedies than taking firearms from the law-abiding. Here is the letter:
“Due to the recent events at Sandy Hook Elementary School, we now face renewed threats to our constitutional rights. While I understand how painful the loss must be for those touched by this tragedy, blaming firearms or their owners and punishing them is not the answer to the challenges we face as a nation.
“We already have laws that were violated by a man who was likely psychotic and heavily medicated. This man was stopped by the mandatory background check from purchasing firearms. He then decided to murder his mother and take her legally owned firearms to commit this tragedy.
“If your true goal is to protect our children, then enact legislation that will do that. Banning firearms that are rarely used in crime (less than 1 percent of the time) is not going to stop such tragedies. That was proven in 1999 when the Columbine shooting took place under the 1994 ban.
“Do something meaningful, please. Make committing the insane easier. Allow trained school staff access to defensive weapons. But do not strip us of our rights and property by passing additional anti-gun laws that have historically had no positive effect on crime in our nation or others.”
Tipton must put nation’s needs ahead of partisan wrangling
On Jan. 1 Rep. Scott Tipton voted against a measure that raises taxes on American families and businesses. Had the majority of the House voted with him instead of against him, taxes for American families and businesses would have gone up more, not less.
As I’m sure he is aware, confidence in Congress is at an all-time low. Why? It is because neither side will work with the other for the good of the country. The plan that finally passed was far from perfect, but it makes no sense to vote against it just because it doesn’t solve all the problems. One can’t walk a mile if one never takes the first step.
We still need to close tax loopholes, perhaps cap deductions and reduce spending on nonessential programs. This plan was just a start, but Tipton needs to become part of the solution instead of part of the problem.
Tipton says, “Washington did not tax its way to a $16.3 trillion debt; it spent its way there.” Of course, we didn’t tax our way into debt; taxes raise revenue, not spend it.
Had we funded our expenditures such as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars with higher taxes, we likely wouldn’t be in the situation we’re in now and probably would have been less likely to get into those wars in the first place. Why is it that after tax cut after tax cut Tipton thinks we have a spending problem?
The problem with cutting spending is that it also cuts jobs, and when someone loses his job, he or she is 100 percent unemployed. Increasing taxes affects everyone more or less equally and so is more equitable.
We hope that with regard to the upcoming debt-ceiling vote, Tipton will put our country before partisan politics.
JAMES G. REIMER