Newspaper backs status quo over change

To the editor:

While I am not surprised at your editorial board’s endorsement of the honorable Sen. John McCain for president, I am saddened by it (Sunday Review-Journal).

At a historic opportunity for change, your newspaper has decidedly sided with the status quo. Sen. McCain does not represent change on any meaningful level. On foreign policy, taxes and a host of other issues, Sen. McCain represents a continuation of President George W. Bush’s policies and politics. I can only surmise that your newspaper wholeheartedly endorses the continuation of the Iraq war, the tax giveaways to the wealthy and the trivial politics that have dominated the headlines in recent years.

I know that Sen. Barack Obama has flaws, and that his politics and policies are far from perfect, but I know that he represents a more positive direction for the country than Sen. McCain. Sen. McCain’s attacks in recent days have become more desperate, and there is evidence that he is rallying people around some of the more scurrilous attacks.

I hope that your reporters and opinion writers, as seekers after the truth, will aid in debunking the false claims and not continue to play the same games that have misled the American people in the recent past and the present. The readers of your newspaper deserve better.

Scott Van Winkle


What kind of change?

To the editor:

People need to ask: What kind of change?

Once upon a time, there was a charismatic and eloquent young leader who decided his nation needed a change, and that he was the one to implement it. The people were receptive and ready for change.

He spoke passionately when denouncing the existing system, and the media loved him. Nobody questioned what he believed in or who his friends were. He would help the poor and bring free medical care and education to all. He would bring justice and equality. He said I am for hope and change, and I will bring you both. Few people bothered to ask about the change, and by the time the executioners’ guns went silent, all personal firearms had been confiscated, along with most personal freedoms.

When everyone was finally equal, they were (and are) equally poor, hungry and miserable. Their free education was (and is) all but worthless. Their free and universal health care was (and remains) a travesty. When the change was fully implemented, the country had been reduced to Third World status. More than a million people fled in small boats and rafts.

The charismatic young leader was Fidel Castro; the nation is Cuba.

The citizens of the United States would never fall for a charismatic, eloquent young leader who promises hope and change without asking, “What kind of change, and how much will it cost us?” — would we?

Donna Stickler


Grow, invest

To the editor:

Like Michael Henderson, I am not a president of anything and can also use a calculator. In response to Mr. Henderson’s Sunday letter, in which he states that Sen. Barack Obama will raise taxes a mere $5,803 per household in the top 1 percent of income earners: Putting aside whether his numbers are accurate — they may well be — there are other considerations here.

First, which is better? $7,875,785,176 additional government funds or $7,875,785,176 additional capital investment funds? The rich don’t just stuff their money in mattresses — that’s why they’re rich! They invest, create jobs and grow businesses and our economy. Tax dollars don’t accomplish any of that. In these troubled times, wouldn’t it be better to strengthen our economy than to weaken it? Increasing taxes weakens the economy; increasing savings and investment strengthens our economy.

Second, Mr. Henderson considers only the top 1 percent of households, but as any astute observer notes, what affects the rich affects us all. Increased taxes get passed on to consumers; anyone who buys anything will pay more for everything. In these troubled times, do we really want every business owner in America having to raise prices?

Lastly, Mr. Henderson looks only at the top 1 percent of taxpayers. What about the top 5 percent? The top 10 percent? The top 25 percent? The top 50 percent? Now is not the time for socialist redistributions of wealth through increased taxes. Now is the time for growth.

Theodore Sell


Law-abiding illegals?

To the editor:

Did anyone else find it interesting that Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie said that only lawbreaking illegals would be turned over to federal immigration authorities (“LV, federal agencies join forces,” Oct. 16 Review-Journal)? I am an old electrician, and, yes, I am having trouble dealing with my retirement funds going down the crapper, but who among the “undocumented” is law-abiding?

Nicholas P. Gartner


News Headlines
pos-2 — ads_infeed_1
post-4 — ads_infeed_2
Local Spotlight
Home Front Page Footer Listing
You May Like

You May Like