Vote tells White House to change direction

To the editor:

Recent election results in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia should send a message to the White House and Congress: America is going in the wrong direction.

While President Obama was highly critical of the massive deficit left by the Bush administration, he promised a change. Indeed, he kept his promise — by changing for the worse. His proposal for spending is as though there were no tomorrow. Our children and grandchildren will be left with trillions of dollars in debt that they may be unable to pay. The economy, joblessness and housing foreclosures are no better than the time of Mr. Bush.

It is time the White House and Congress do a volte-face and listen to the American people.

Alfonso L. Tiu


Another tea party

To the editor:

Wow. The shot heard around the world. Another Boston Tea Party. ObamaCare is finished in the Senate, and will never pass in the form that it was written — behind closed doors by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

The American people have spoken, and now the Democratic Party must play by the rules, or risk political suicide in the 2010 congressional elections.

To the Obama presidency, the Massachusetts Senate election was equivalent of the stock market crash of 1929. Mr. Obama now needs to be more of a centrist, not the ideologue he has been — or he will ultimately be a one-term president.

Stephen J. Chiarello


GOP strategy

To the editor:

If you’ve been frustrated at what you perceive as inaction in Congress, wait until you see how stressed you’ll be now that the Democrats in the Senate have lost their 60-vote majority with the election of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts.

So far this session all the Republicans could do was to delay Democratic bills, but now they can filibuster, and thereby block any proposed Democratic legislation, and make Senate activity grind to a halt. Republicans will claim that they are acting to protect Americans from the “tax and spend” Democrats. But their real goal is to embarrass congressional Democrats, and President Obama, so they can win congressional races in 2010, and possibly take back the White House in 2012.

This is really about the Republicans putting party before country. Understand that.

Richard J. Mundy


Angry voters

To the editor:

I hope the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts is the beginning of a wave of frustration, not just at President Obama and the Democrats in Congress but at both parties.

Both parties are arrogant and are beholden to powerful interest groups. A message needs to be sent by voters that says we will no longer trade Democrats for Republicans or visa versa.

We want compromise and cooperation and we want common-sense solutions that are not dictated by powerful interest groups. We want to be told the truth about the cost of legislation and asked the tough questions about whether we wish to raise taxes, or cut other programs to fund new programs.

Neither party does that, and we need stand up and say to both of them that this is no longer acceptable, and if they insist on continuing, we will not leave people who participate in office, regardless of party affiliation. We need to do this to save our country from ruin.

Michael K. Casler


On the job

To the editor:

Your Tuesday editorial implies, for the third time, that empty threats to score political points can change the face of health care reform. I ignored the first two instances of this misinformation. But, the repetition of this false notion could sufficiently confuse the citizens of Nevada into thinking their best interests are being ignored.

This approach foments controversy, stirs emotions and sells newspapers, but is a disservice to the readers of your paper.

Far from having no interest in “weighing in” on this issue, I am monitoring the two versions (Senate and House) of federal health care reform very closely along with my staff. When these two bills are merged and a final version is submitted to the president for his signature and becomes law, I will thoroughly review the legislation and assess whether any portion of it potentially violates the constitutional rights of the citizens of our state. As always, I will aggressively represent all Nevadans and weigh in on the possible legal ramifications.

Attorneys general from other states certainly have a right to express their differences with any range of bills working their way through the congressional process. I have chosen to express my concerns via a direct conversation with Sen. Harry Reid.

I have also been in contact with other attorneys general on this matter. To a person, they realize any legal action challenging the constitutionality of the federal health care legislation can take place only once the legislation passes both houses of Congress and is signed by the president into law. Appropriate action to address any violation of the Constitution that may be contained in the final language will certainly take place once the bill becomes law. I, and my fellow attorneys general, will challenge these flaws, if they exist, through the courts and through recognized channels, leading to binding legal protection for citizens of Nevada.




News Headlines
Local Spotlight
Home Front Page Footer Listing
You May Like

You May Like