To the editor:
Before we forget yesterday's news, let us think about the similarities between Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada and ex-Sen. Tom Daschle, President Obama's failed nominee for Health and Human Services secretary.
Neither man has ever had an adult job that did not involve the direction of public money into the pockets of their clients or political allies. They both were originally elected to Congress by a handful of votes in a three-way election where thousands of votes went to a Libertarian candidate, and they then used the power of incumbency to assure re-election in a small state.
As senators, these men became masters of arcane senatorial procedures in order to advance the extreme liberal agenda of the Clinton-Gore-Kennedy media celebrity wing of the Democratic Party.
On a personal level, both Sen. Daschle and Sen. Reid developed an attitude of entitlement to their office and immunity from the bureaucratic oversight that they are so eager to impose on ordinary citizens. Palatial homes and offices, chauffeurs, private plane rides, access to unusual investment opportunities, excused from severe IRS attention -- all part of their public "service" careers.
The people of South Dakota ultimately tired of electing a senator who better represented Massachusetts than traditional values and morality. They can also take pride in rejecting the argument that a senior senator can deliver federal pork to his home state. An argument that, if taken to its logic conclusion, would mean all their constituents should be able to immediately retire on a federal pension paid for by the taxpayers of the other 49 states.
In 2010, Sen. Harry Reid should either quit or be voted out of office before he embarrasses himself and Nevada any further.
To the editor:
Once again we see the arrogance of public-sector workers. Instead of having skeleton crews to man offices, we see them shut down. This is blatant passive-aggressive behavior.
The front-page article in Saturday's Review-Journal indicated 200,000 California state workers had to take an unpaid day off, and they cried and sued over the loss of income. Meanwhile, the private sector has lost, according to the article, 3.6 million jobs. These 200,000 workers are losing a couple of days of pay a month. Sorry, I don't cry for them.
They forget that their pay is taken from the wallets of the private sector, and that sector is losing hundreds of thousands of jobs monthly. This also gets me back to the belief that there are too many public-sector jobs -- period.
How many of these jobs can be outsourced into the private sector, where taxes are generated, Social Security taxes are paid, the cost of benefits would be on the contracting companies and their employees rather than taxpayers, where pay raises are merit-based and not handed out in steps and COLA's. Where the employees get half-hour instead of one-hour lunches, have to work weekends, nights and holidays.
Public sector employees who aren't in public safety or have to be available 24 hours per day have it good, so they should be thankful they're working at all. Do we really need government workers to cut grass, do building maintenance, be clerks, run errands, etc.? All we need in government is contract managers and auditors to get things done.
And the contracts must have a stipulation for a bond and that any contractor caught employing an illegal immigrant will lose the contract.
An easy job
To the editor:
Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps is an extremely fortunate young man. He can swim very fast. At least he could. It is the kind of skill that doesn't last. Other than that, he is a young man who suffers a pronounced speech impediment, isn't head-turning in his physical appearance and who makes big money resting on his laurels. All he has to do is live up to an image that the parents of America love.
So what if every person on the planet smoked marijuana in "the day"? This guy doesn't have to do anything great for the rest of his life but live up to a standard he himself embraces. Is it really that tough to do?
If he can't handle it, I would love to trade jobs with him.
A different plan
To the editor:
If you really think the common man needs more federal tax cuts, then try more revenue sharing with the states.
How about sending out several hundred billion dollars to the states, apportioned strictly on population. Put limits on how it can be spent with any leftover funds to be distributed back to the population via sales tax rebate days.
That ought to stimulate purchases by those with any money left to spend.