Both major parties are the Party of War

To the editor:

I believe that the biggest reason our country is in financial trouble has been the costs of war over the past 20 years. These were wars we had no business in and wars that accomplished nothing. If we believe we won the war, there was nothing won.

In the case of Iraq, the country is worse off and the fighting still goes on. The United States have been at war in Afghanistan since Sept. 12, 2001. There are no concrete figures for what the Gulf War (Desert Storm) cost the United States, but it's estimated at $17 billion and upward.

The most recent major report on the Iraq and Afghanistan war costs come from Brown University in the form of the costs-of-war project, which found the total for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan is at least $3.2 trillion to $4 trillion, which includes interest paid to finance the war. And these figures don't include the costs of medical treatment that will be ongoing for years.

We as citizens are paying dearly for the boys to use their toys. No price can be determined for the human lives that were lost on all sides. As far as politics go, this was done under Republican and Democratic reigns in all the chambers of politics. When are people going to wake up to the fact that there is no conceivable difference between our supposed two parties?



Simple solution

To the editor:

We as a country can no longer tolerate a dysfunctional two-party governing system. The way it looks this mess will go on for many years and it's time to consider a one-party governing system. This would be called the "All American Party," for lack of a better title.

How this would work I haven't a clue. All I can fathom is that it would need highly intelligent men and women with a whole lot of common sense. There would be no red and blue states.

The Civil War that's still being fought in many Southern states and others would come to an end. Bigotry would be considered a crime. If all this were not to the liking of some, maybe impeaching the Republicans would be a better solution.



Stroke of the pen

To the editor:

On Jan. 12 the Review-Journal reported that our own Sen. Harry Reid is encouraging President Obama to ride roughshod over the Constitutional provision that gives Congress authority for initiating revenue bills and debt payment. Sen. Reid wants the president to seize unlimited spending power. Sen. Reid joins Nancy Pelosi in a tortured interpretation of the 14th Amendment, an amendment intended to deal with debts from the Civil War.

I'm not sure when Harry Reid decided to ignore his oath to protect the Constitution. All I know is that when I explain to my grandchildren why we're leaving to them a bankrupt country, that we spent their money and now their share of the national debt is more than $55,000 apiece, Harry Reid's name will come up often.

I wonder how Sen. Reid plans to explain it to his grandchildren?



Pass a budget

To the editor:

The progressive party has lost sight of the constitutional limits on government. They seem to think "they" can bypass anything as long as "they" use the oval office to sign it into law.

Sen. Harry Reid and the other 534 elected individuals need to realize this is not an open checkbook to bankruptcy. It should not take but one day to shut down this outrageous spending they are doing. They have to realize that there is just so much money coming in.

Two things they need to do: First pass a budget and second set an attainable debt limit. Then they need to lower corporate tax rates so companies can hire people. That will increase moneys in the till. Jobs are where money comes from to run this country.

Then they need to read ObamaCare page by page and get rid of the job killing parts of that legislation. The average voter doesn't understand all this program will cost them in the long run.



Lay off Harry

To the editor:

I realize the editorial page policy of the Review-Journal is to oppose anything Obama, Reid, Democratic Party or the least bit progressive, but I have to make one comment:

Sherman Frederick has to find something else to write about other than Sen. Harry Reid. I get it that he opposes Sen. Reid in almost everything, but he has let him get under his skin.

If they were athletic rivals, Sen. Reid would beat Mr. Frederick easily because Sen. Reid seems to dominate so much of his thinking.

I like Sen. Reid; he has done a fine job in my opinion. And look at it this way: Would Sen. Sharron Angle have been better?



Still has questions

To the editor:

Regarding Henry Soloway's Jan. 13 letter, it'd be interesting to know where he acquires his information. I would suspect his generalizations were based more on personal opinion than extensive research.

As far as publishing the list of gun owners, it appears to be an example of cheap journalism intended to embarrass those named and sell more newspapers. It probably did serve to increase information to those who'd like to know which homes are unprotected.

I have friends of both parties who are NRA members and obviously support private gun ownership for hunting, target shooting, personal protection or merely collecting to honor those who fought for our rights.

Claiming that Republicans hate freedom of speech is ridiculous. Americans of both parties support or should support the First Amendment. After reading about the restrictions placed on those living in other lands and the penalties they subject themselves to (like the teenage girl shot in the face in the Middle East for promoting education for women) we should all be thankful we have this right.

In fact, I feel the government should be much more free with information impacting us all. I would like to know why the slaughter in Benghazi was allowed to happen and why we were fed lies about it. I would like to know why the EPA vouched for certain ethanol blends to be sold in parts of the country as car fuel, only to find out some car manufacturers void car warranties as its use causes excessive damage.

I want to know why executive orders, written to bypass Congress, are seldom given much coverage by the mass media. Privilege carries responsibility.