Printed letters, January 18, 2013

As expected, there are those who are critical of Congressman Scott Tipton’s vote against the Senate bill (actually it is more accurate to call it a “deal”), which some claimed would avert the so-called fiscal cliff.

Those same critics would have us believe that Tipton actually wants to see a recession and a government shut down. That’s absolute nonsense.

Tipton voted exactly the way he told his constituents he would vote if he were called upon to raise taxes, absent some unforeseen and compelling reason. Moreover, the Senate package did nothing whatsoever to address the bigger problem, a need for meaningful spending reform.

Along with most of his House colleagues, Tipton is correctly bent on cutting wasteful spending in Washington. Those who think that the House is doing nothing are uninformed.

The Republican-led House has passed two budgets in the 1,350-plus days since the Democrat-controlled Senate last passed a budget. President Barack Obama and the Senate Democrats, however, won’t act on the House budgets, presumably to protect special-interest spending and government waste that would otherwise be cut by Republicans.

It’s ironic how Democrats continue to warn that Tipton and other conservatives are somehow a threat to Medicare and Social Security. The truth is that these conservatives realize that those programs face bankruptcy if Washington doesn’t do something now to curb wasteful spending.

We in the 3rd Congressional District should be relieved to know that Tipton did not give his stamp of approval to the so-called fiscal cliff “deal” that tap-danced completely around the obvious culprit of the problem, irresponsible government spending. Nor, by the way, did he go along with the part of the “deal” that punishes small-businesses with higher taxes, job reductions and a plan that crushes economic growth.

Tipton is making good on his promises to fight against higher taxes and to stop the spending frenzy. We need more of his kind in Washington.


Grand Junction




Collins cites wrong reasons 
for declining abortion support

In her Jan. 13 column in The Daily Sentinel, Gail Collins was right in observing that abortion advocates are reeling and support is declining, but she was completely wrong in trying to sort out the reasons for this decline.

As technology has advanced, more and more people have seen with their own eyes that a fetus developing within the womb is recognizably human and not a lump of tissue. Clinging to the notion that ending the life of this developing human is simply a matter of choice has become increasingly problematic when we live in a society that is constantly being rocked by appallingly bad choices.

Slaughtering innocent children at school, shooting moviegoers and abandoning children in a running car for 90 minutes are just a few examples of choices that must be opposed. While Americans are a generous people when it comes to matters of autonomy, approval of a choice must always be conditioned by what is being chosen.

When it comes to abortion, more and more people are coming to the uncomfortable realization that it entails the ending of an innocent human life and therefore should be opposed.

Collins’ most obvious error was in her concluding paragraph. She wrote, “The anti-abortion movement ... is basically about imposing one particular theology on the rest of the country.” Nonsense. Opposition to abortion has little to do with imposing a theology on anyone.

Based on the science of embryology, however, we want the rest of the country to face the facts of what is involved. We seek to awaken all to the reality of what abortion entails. We refuse to buy into the mythology of the “lump of tissue.”

To point out the folly of giving blanket approval to what has become increasingly apparent: The ending of innocent human life cannot and must not be reduced to a simple matter of choice.



Mesa County Right to Life 

Grand Junction


Cartoon misinforms readers 
about raising debt limit

I was disappointed to see the editorial cartoon in Wednesday’s Daily Sentinel showing President Obama holding an assault rifle representing government spending and the debt limit. There is a common misperception that a vote to raise the debt limit is a vote to increase government spending. That is not true.

Raising the debt limit merely allows the U.S. Treasury to borrow money to pay for spending that Congress (not the president) has already approved. It is simply paying one’s bill after running up the tab.

In fact, Congress voted to increase the debt limit seven times during President George W. Bush’s term, 18 times during President Reagan’s term and only three times during President Obama’s term. Everyone agrees that we should reduce our country’s debt, and, in fact, our country’s annual budget deficit has been decreasing.

I know that The Daily Sentinel takes its responsibility to accurately inform its readers very seriously, but to mischaracterize debt limit legislation as a vote to increase government spending is a disservice to the community that the Sentinel serves.


Grand Junction


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Page 1 of 1

Quote from Mr.Crittenden:

“Raising the debt limit merely allows the U.S. Treasury to borrow money to pay for spending”

Hmmm… what kind of financial wisdom is this… isn’t borrowing money just spending money you haven’t made yet? This the crux of the whole problem…robbing from Peter to pay Paul.

I suppose buying a house with a mortgage is also spending money you haven’t made yet. Borrowing isn’t the issue. The problem with Congress is they decide to spend money and then refuse to make enough to afford the payments.

Page 1 of 1

Search More Jobs

734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050; M-F 8:00 - 5:00
Subscribe to print edition
eTear Sheets/ePayments

© 2017 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy