Email Letters: March 16, 2017
Many don’t understand complexity of healthcare insurance
Progressives have made fun of a recent comment by President Trump that healthcare insurance is complex. Yes, it is. Many progressives don’t fully appreciate just how complex it is.
In the U.S., 66 percent of full-time workers (Kaiser Foundation) get their insurance through their employer. Providing health insurance to recruit and retain good workers took off during World War II and has always been an important benefit in union contract negotiations. Obamacare impacts only about 10 percent of the population. Progressives want you to think it impacts everybody.
Don’t confuse the need for us to improve the delivery of healthcare with Obamacare. We may need to help the working poor who don’t get insurance from an employer, but don’t let that tail wag the dog. Otherwise you may end up losing a benefit from work that you like. Employers will be happy to not have to pay this benefit; it is expensive. Now here is the ironic twist. Single pay, what Sen. Sanders and Sen. Warren promote, helps big business. Like your insurance, and like your doctor. Watch out.
DAVID A KEARSLEY
Outside revenue isn’t going to come rescue the Grand Valley
Can we talk about the Elephant in the Room?
Sure, it’s hard to see The Elephant when the room is so full of elephants – the political kinds who tell us “we don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.”
Yet where have years focused on spending cuts taken our community? To a meeting where the county clerk tells commissioners she’ll close her office one day a week, rather than cut more from a budget she had just voluntarily cut. To which Commissioner Scott McInnis responds: “The reality is we just can’t wish this money will fall from the sky.”
The Elephant is, we have been wishing this money will fall from the sky – or at least not come out of our own pockets. We’ve bought the notion that we can get outsiders to pay for our infrastructure. That businesses from elsewhere will choose us if we just make our low taxes lower – that going without or doing it on the cheap shows character.
Larimer County does a comprehensive budget survey of the ten largest counties excluding Denver. In 2016, Mesa County had the lowest proportion of its operating budget funded by taxes and fees. We have the next lowest per capita property taxes after El Paso County. And we ranked first by far in relying on state and federal funds (51 percent of our budget).
Certainly, our high percentage of non-taxable land accounts for some of the difference. But let’s not discount our faith in the revenue fairy – tourists, energy companies and free-spending minor league hockey fans that leave money while we sleep.
The reality is, outside revenue doesn’t come to rescue anyone. It comes to be part of a success that’s already underway. But it’s easier to make unpopular cuts when the alternative is even less popular.
Judge who blocked travel ban may not know what is best for the country
Mr. President, I do not believe that you know what is best for the national security of these United States according to me, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson, because I am a federal judge and that makes my authority much higher than yours.
Again here comes the loser politics in this stay and his reasons are that it may hurt the flow of students and tourist to the state of Hawaii. I think it might be unconstitutional. Where is the judge’s proof of how many students and tourists it will affect from these countries for such a short period of time?
Attorneys argue that to reduce the number of refugees allowed into the United States by 50,000 will strand that many also in war torn countries. Do you believe they would really care if this country were war torn and its citizens were coming to their country? Many of those wanting into this country should be staying put and fighting for their countries, just as millions have done for this country the past 240-plus years. However, they would rather come to the United States and turn it into what they are leaving behind. Such is the case in some instances to date.
How do so many Harvard or others wise lawyers put a document together for the president to sign and say, yes this is legal, and constitutional and yet one individual with a black robe can say, no you’re all wrong because I say so? Not sure how this all equals concern for the security of the United States that 61 million-plus voters approved the president of the United States.
How can Sentinel support event center while ignoring signs suggesting insufficient funds?
How can The Daily Sentinel – in good conscience – profess support for a new event center while at the same time ignoring all the warning signs suggesting insufficient funds?
On Sunday, March 12, the Sentinel’s editorial amounted to a gushing plea for “yes” votes for the new event center. But on March 14, the lead story recounted how the county clerk and the county commissioners had “clashed” over the clerk’s office’ budget. The county clerk stated that she’d recently undergone a voluntary 8 percent reduction, including some employee layoffs, and the county commissioners have recently asked for an additional 5 percent reduction on top of the 8 percent.
Not mentioned at all is the Sentinel’s recent publication of the need for about $200 million for county schools. Nor the possibility of a special public-safety tax increase to adequately fund the sheriff’s office and the county prosecutors. Nor the possibility of deferring the interest on the Riverside Parkway bonds in order to afford needed street repairs. Nor the possibility of city/county employee layoffs. Nor the matter of the Two Rivers Convention Center, Avalon, Tiara Rado, and Las Colonias band shell subsidies.
So which is it, Daily Sentinel? Is there plenty of tax money to underwrite everything contemplated, or are we looking at some serious debt challenges that need to come at the expense of an event center?
On another subject – Why are only city residents eligible to vote on the event center, while everyone in the Grand Valley, including me, will be forced to pay the additional tax? Perhaps a “taxation without representation” lawsuit is in order.
The Maddow show on Trump’s tax returns was over-hyped and embarrassing
Can a show host and a network embarrass itself any more than the over-hyped and nothing-there Rachel “Mad Dog” Maddow Trump tax return show? Probably not, but MSNBC will keep on trying! Can’t wait for the Emmy Awards show to see how many Emmys the network media will award it and to listen to her acceptance speech.