-
Political Reporting, the Government, and Social Security
Tweet Share on Facebook July 26, 2010 Comment (3)Inouye Facts We Didn’t Know?
Your “10 Things You Didn’t Know About Daniel Inouye” [July 9] left out the fact that his Distinguished Service Cross was upgraded to a Medal of Honor almost 10 years ago. It was done after a review of minority DSC earners, particularly those of Japanese ancestry.
ROBERT DOLEMAN Fort Sill, Okla.
The Monument’s Claim to Fame
Your quiz [“A Walk on the National Mall,” July 9] includes a true-or-false question regarding the Washington Monument. Though it is likely true that this monument is the tallest “pure” obelisk in the world, I think you will find some controversy about whether it is the tallest stone structure. It falls just short of the San Jacinto Monument in Texas, commemorating the decisive battle of the Texas Revolution. With the semantics of the column’s height, the height of the San Jacinto star, the quantity of stone, etc., it is probably a question that is always correct (more than one right answer) depending on whom you ask.
ROD ALLEN Houston
Political Reporting’s Slow Death
In his July 9 column [“The Slow Death of Political Reporting”], Robert Schlesinger writes, “But journalism isn’t stenography. It involves probing, context, nonsense detection and, sometimes, pointed interaction,” effectively answering his own lament about the decline of political reporting. The fact is, and the problem is, that the remaining political reporters do not do much probing, context, nonsense detection and, sometimes, pointed interaction. Increasingly, they trumpet the agenda and legislation of the Democratic party and the current administration.
STEVE WOOD Raleigh, N.C.
I have seen the Atlanta Journal-Constitution survive to profitability by becoming a politically neutral publication. Yes, it has both conservative and progressive columnists, but they are labeled as such on the op-ed page. Daily reporting of news events is essentially neutral. Most readers are capable of drawing their own conclusions regarding news.
JEROME KILTHAU Kennesaw, Ga.
The Government’s Business
Mort Zuckerman writes that “Washington’s ability to initiate a resurgence is now limited by the long-term dangers of our deficits and our debts” [“Why Business Fears Obama: Words and Deeds,” July 16]. The thing I just don’t get is, if Mr. Zuckerman is correct about the American entrepreneurial spirit and its remarkable fruit, why are we even looking to Washington to “initiate a resurgence”? Isn’t that our job as free and entrepreneurial people?
SUSAN STEPHENS Midland, Mich.
Is Social Security Secure?
The social security system is currently solvent and has enough funds from revenue and reserves to pay benefits in the short run [Editor’s Note, July 16]. For the longer term, we will probably have to tweak it a bit, such as by increasing the amount of income subject to the tax or raising the early and/or full retirement ages. Social Security is not responsible for the deficit, and its funds should be kept separate and not used for other government spending.
JANET CARLSON Pittsburgh
Call Social Security a benefit or an entitlement, but those who have contributed and those who will should know that what is promised is a promise that will be kept.
KERMIT THATCHER Wesley Chapel, Fla.
-
Should Obama Get Line-Item Veto Power?
Tweet Share on Facebook July 19, 2010 Comment (3)Ryan Alexander of Taxpayers for Common Sense argued it would cut wasteful spending; Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute said it gives the president too much power. Your feedback:
The power of budgets must be kept in the Congress, and it is up to the electorate to vote in people who can produce a balanced budget.
CESARE CIATTI Alamo, Calif.
Give the president the line-item veto. It will force some discipline on an otherwise undisciplined Congress. If a bill has the votes, it can override the veto. Enough of the pork, the influence of the lobbyists, and the theft of our vote and our part in the process. And if we don’t like what the president vetoes, we can vote him out as well.
GORDON HAGEWOOD Burke, Va.
When a bill is submitted to the president, it should only be for what it is intended. There should be no attachments. This would prevent a special-interest politician from inserting his or her own pork-barrel item into the bill. Sign or veto on the bill’s merits only, nothing else.
ROLAND PICARD Pinetop, Ariz.
Instead of a line-item veto, which I feel gives the president too much power, I’d prefer to see bills containing one subject only, thus eliminating unrelated amendments.
RON SHARPLESS Punta Gorda, Fla.
I think that the ideal (which I assume will never happen) would be to amend the Constitution to require that every provision of every bill be individually signed by the president, or it will be automatically vetoed, with three quarters of each house of Congress required for an override. Failing that, put as many obstacles in the way of taxing and spending as possible.Provide that in any fiscal year in which a budget deficit exists, no elected official—and no former elected official—shall receive any pay or allowance or any service fromprovided by employees of the United States. This includes air conditioning in quarters or offices, food, transportation, security, medical care, or the use of government buildings without paying a minimum rent of $1,000 per day.
JOSEPH DURUSAU San Antonio
Obama is incompetent. He would use a line-item veto to increase the size of government and the cost of government.
KEN LAMB Hartford, Wis.
Curb wasteful spending. How about if Obama just quits spending and
expanding government? Almost all of his spending is either wasteful or political paybacks. I thought he promised to end earmarks anyway. Oh, yeah, that was along with all his other broken promises.RANDY MORGAN Iron River, Wis.
The Constitution (remember that tired, old document?) grants sole authority to Congress for spending. No line-item veto for any president, much less this one. Our spending has gone crazy, which begs for us to replace Congress this November, both the House and the Senate. How about limiting the size of bills so “pork” doesn’t have any room? If you can’t say it in 1,000 pages, it doesn’t need to be done.
CHRIS PETTY Marietta, Ga.
-
McChrystal's Firing, Arizona's Immigration Law, and Pelosi's Leadership
Tweet Share on Facebook July 12, 2010 Comment (6)Petraeus or McChrystal?
Gen. Stanley McChrystal had to be removed [“Petraeus Drafted for New Duty,” June 25]. His comments demonstrated a lack of discipline, not to be tolerated in a wartime commander. President Obama made a wise choice in Gen. David Petraeus. Petraeus has the knowledge and experience to keep the war effort on target.
JAN HOPKE-ALMER Tucson
Having served with General Petraeus’s father-in-law during World War II in the 87th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron, 7th Armored Division, my remarks may be somewhat biased. Yes, Petraeus is the correct choice. After all, he was General McChrystal’s boss. The questions in my mind have me wondering if McChrystal was serving two masters. Although Petraeus was his boss, McChrystal was also reporting directly to the president.
MICHAEL FURLICH South Sioux City, Neb.
The president absolutely did the right thing. Though the situation was different, he did what President Truman did. It was correct then and correct this time. Whether Republican or Democrat, the president is the commander-in-chief and must demonstrate that at all times. President Obama was fortunate to be able to appoint someone with the ability possessed by General Petraeus.
MURTON BROWN Melville, N.Y.
I think that General McChrystal did it on purpose. He was just sick of his boys getting killed and maimed fighting with both arms tied behind their backs. The stupid rules we have to follow but the enemy doesn’t are insane. Has no one read the book Seven Pillars of Wisdom by T. E. Lawrence? I certainly recommend it to all, so we would have a better understanding of our enemy. They laugh at us, with very good reason.
KATHLEEN HOLTZER Meeteetse, Wyo.
I think that as commander-in-chief, the president overreacted by relieving General McChrystal of his command. That said, General Patraeus is the best choice available, even if it is less responsibility than he already had. The situation in Afghanistan is very delicate and demanding, an important opportunity to restore freedom and stability to a good country and good people after decades of nothing but violence and war. Despite President Karzai’s opposition, it may require some form of federalization, with more authority and responsibility to elected regional leaders.
LEONARD LLOYD Oakley, Calif.
Arizona’s Immigration Law
I see very little difference between Arizona’s immigration-check law and the laws of other states, such as California’s environmental statutes, that supplement federal laws to enhance quality of life for their citizens. [Editor’s Note, June 25]
JIM ALSTON New Braunfels, Texas
There is a deep resentment among most Americans with the continued flow of illegals across the Mexican border. Americans understand that the vast majority are here to either make a better home for themselves or to earn money that they can send home, themselves eventually returning to their home country. But they can’t ignore the fact that they are here illegally, compete with Americans for jobs, and increase the burden on school systems and other government services. We generously have had at least two previous amnesties, but what country can continue to allow undocumented, possibly criminal individuals to continue flaunting its borders? It’s one thing for our own federal authorities to ignore existing laws in this regard; it’s quite another to actively oppose the efforts of citizens and states to do what they fail to do.
JOE SNYDER Power Springs, Ga.
More border states, such as California, should do what Arizona did. Unfortunately, California doesn’t have the guts.
DENIS HURST San Diego
I see only two viable courses of action on illegal immigration: One, get very serious about requiring employers to require proof of citizenship at the time of hiring even temporary workers. That would reduce the major reason for illegals to cross into the United States. Or two, recognize the tacit approval of the status quo, evidenced by inaction for generations, and legalize those working here. Low-wage workers work hard and keep our food costs low. Most pay taxes in many ways; social security withholding, sales taxes, car license taxes, et cetera. We should just get over the fact that they got here illegally.
TOM KARASEK Longview, Wash
The law does not, as you stated in your Editor’s Note, allow “police to check the immigration status of anyone suspected of being here illegally.” It’s only after police have legitimate contact with someone for another reason, such as suspicion of a crime, that they are authorized to take any action regarding immigration status.
KERRY DALY Suquamish, Wash.
The people who have run the immigration departments over the last years should be fired for not carrying out their sworn duty to uphold the laws of the United States and remove all who have illegally entered this country. More money and effort needs to be expended on securing our borders.
GARY LARSON Renton, Wash
I live in Arizona near the border and see the consequences of illegal immigration and smuggling on a daily basis: destruction of our deserts, home invasions, abandoned pack horses, dead border-crossers, shootouts with law enforcement agents, closed national parks, out of control brush fires, deadly car chases, etc. The people down here are getting desperate and Governor Jan Brewer knows it. Americans have a good sense of right and wrong and they know that the federal policy of allowing immigrants into our country without going through the legal process is fundamentally wrong and unfair. Hopefully, the next presidential election will produce a candidate who has the same intestinal fortitude as Governor Brewer or we will never see this problem end.
CHRISTOPHER ZIMMERMAN Whetstone, Ariz.
Arizona has the right and the duty to protect it’s citizens from illegal immigrants. I applaud them.
DeETTE MOON Bartlesville, Okla.
The more an administration feels that one solution fits all, the more we are in the kind of trouble that would be caused by finding one-size shoes for everyone. This is a reason for more state rights and less federal power. If Washington keeps fighting to impose its solutions to every problem, will the only answer be another American Revolution?
WILLIAM WAHL Westcliffe, Colo.
Arizona Governor Brewer is merely trying to enforce the federal laws that the government is not. The latest news is that the White House is seeking ways to grant amnesty to those already here. This is a blatant move to secure more Democratic voters in complete disrespect of states’ rights. I am getting more and more convinced of the Socialist movement taking over our federal government and this has to stop.
DAN DONAHUE Riceboro, Ga.
The Arizona law is correct in every respect. When are we going to wake up to what is going on in this country and insist that we protect our borders?
JERRY HAGOOD Owens Cross Roads, Ala.
I live in Arizona and, in general, I think our legislature is comprised of a bunch of ideological dunderheads. But as I have considered the magnitude of the problems we have concerning immigration, and the ineffectiveness of the feds in controlling it, I really don’t have much of a problem with the immigration law. Having said that, I strongly support immigration reform patterned on the old Bracero Program [temporary contract workers] of the 1960s and 1970s. We need many of the workers, and I think they would rather live most of their lives in Mexico, coming to the United States only to earn enough to live.
JACK EVERT Oro Valley, Ariz.
Since citizens are not currently required to carry proof of that status, how can someone who is a citizen prove it to a questioning law enforcement officer? And what is the consequence of not having that proof? Do I, as a citizen, go to jail until the authorities satisfy themselves? The [illegal immigration] issue is begging for a rational policy to emerge, but this law seems to be a desperate and ill-conceived cry for attention.
BRUCE GOREN Los Angeles
The bloated bureaucracy that we call our federal government has become mostly adept at demonstrating its own incompetence. Faced with a real problem, the state of Arizona attempted to wake up the beast. Having been slapped with this effort, our federal government demonstrated that incompetence filters from the top down, overcoming any effort by minor bureaucrats to actually solve a problem for their constituencies. Evidence of this occurred when the Department of Justice announced that they would sue the state of Arizona, rather than enforce Federal statutes already on the books. The hell of the situation is not obvious to anyone in the federal government. Thus is explained the anti-incumbency movement that hopes and prays that the next round of transformational hope and change will occur in our very own federal government, granting us all relief from the madness.
JIM HAMILTON Tulsa, Okla.
It is not only Latinos that are coming across the border, but also terrorists from other countries. I doubt that many of the protesters who don’t live in Arizona are aware of what’s actually going on in that state, and the out-of-state news media certainly isn’t helping. It’s self-defense, not racism. People who haven’t lived under these threats don’t understand the situation.
BOB STEPHAN Pebble Beach, Calif.
I’m in full support of what Arizona’s governor is doing. Being in the front lines of fire with the illegals and problems they are causing Arizona, I say do what you need to do within the law.
KARL CHRISTIANSEN Highland, Utah
I do not see a problem with the law. It is the law of the land, and Arizona is enforcing it. Obama does not like targeting Mexicans, but they are the ones crossing the border illegally. Mexicans with U.S. citizenship should embrace the law. I hope the reaction of the other states forces a “get tough” policy by the federal government.
JERRY APPELL Palm City, Fla.
The fact that Arizonans even had to consider a law to protect their border speaks volumes about the federal government’s abandonment of its constitutional duties to protect our country. The current administration will not uphold its duties until it achieves its goal of complete amnesty. It appears that its goal is to garner a whole new group of Democratic voters. Remember the presidential oath of office to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. The first word in illegal immigration is illegal.
STEPHEN CHILCOTT Hamburg, N.Y.
I do not understand why the Federal government can decide which laws to enforce when I cannot decide which laws I must obey. I applaud Arizona and hope other states, including mine, will do the same.
MACKY PATTON New Braunfels, Texas
How can it be argued that enforcing our immigration laws, which were created to protect American workers, is “too tough”? If jobs are a “top priority” for the Obama administration, why are the president and the Democratic Congress allowing eight million illegal aliens to keep their jobs while 25 million Americans and legal residents are unable to find full-time jobs? When is the media going to stop writing about the political pandering to illegal immigrants and their advocates as though it is about lending a helpful hand to poor immigrants in search of a better life when it’s really about the Democratic Party doing whatever it can to assure that it becomes the dominant political party for decades to come?
DAVE GORAK LaValle, Wisc.
I would wish that more, or all, of the states follow Arizona’s lead.
CARL MASTHAY St. Louis
Pelosi Not Really Leading
Rep. Schakowsky made some good points about women in leadership, but she lost all credibility with me when she included Nancy Pelosi in her discussion [“Leading the Fight for Women,” July 2]. Nancy Pelosi is neither empathetic nor flexible. Perhaps the governor of Arizona would have been a better example.
PAUL WARD Arlington, Texas
-
Should Offshore Oil Drilling Be Expanded?
Tweet Share on Facebook July 7, 2010 Comment (3)Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu argued that offshore drilling is key for our energy future; Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson said the Gulf oil spill shows it’s too dangerous. Your feedback:
Should we continue to drill? No. The amount of oil and gas extracted won’t really impact our need for foreign oil. Is it worth the continuing potential disaster we are now experiencing? Drilling is only a band-aid for the disease: our extravagant misuse of natural resources. Until Americans grow up and get over their “me first, whatever for the rest” attitude, this problem will never go away.
MARILYN MUELLER Alpharetta, Ga.
The moratorium is unnecessary. I work for Big Oil. I’ve been in drilling for almost 30 years. I’ve lived on and worked in the Gulf of Mexico. I am angry with BP for making several questionable operational decisions that led to this tragic event. I am equally angry about BP’s PR effort after the tragedy. They continue to deny the basic cause of this event: a bad decision to use a poor well design. Operators not using BP’s design or procedures should not be shut down. The deepwater drilling moratorium is much pain for little gain. BP’s bad risk management need not be followed by a government display of the same.
JEFFERY TOKARSKY Parker, Colo.
Yes [we should drill offshore], unless we’re closing down the U.S. economy. Of course we should, and are, switching over time to more efficient energy use. But we have a 25-year window when we need to use oil and coal.
J.R. GORDON Pensacola, Fla.
There should be a complete halt to drilling new offshore wells until it can be shown that blowout preventers work properly, and that spilled oil can be cleaned up.
GEORGE SCOTT Schenectady, N.Y.
Instead of more handouts to prop up a 20th-century industry built on outsourcing its risk and pollutants to the environment and people who rely on it, we should be moving forward to 21st-century technologies that are clean and create steady jobs. We can’t make any significant dent in our dependence on foreign oil without ending our dependence on oil itself. Estimated increases from expanding even the riskiest sources would net domestic output increases of less than 5 percent. This isn’t a national energy plan. It’s a handout to corporations.
JEREMY SHIPLEY Iowa City, Iowa
No company wants a bad public outlook on them, along with profit loss, and the guilt of destroying the environment. They are people too, believe it or not.
JAMES SARTAIN Murfreesboro, Tenn.
It is very clear that we are controlled by the need for carbon fuels at this time. No matter what other alternative arrangements develop, it will take time. I’m an environmentalist, but also a realist, and any further considerations have to be done cautiously. Deepwater drilling has obvious problems, so enhanced regulations and oversight are needed.
CLAYTON BERLING Carmel, Calif.
