Letters to the Editor: Issue of June 14, 2012
Digital program out of date
Regarding the June 7 story “Three PUSD schools working to close the digital divide”:
This program looks well-intentioned, but is already out of date. The latest science shows that the biggest difference between the advantaged and disadvantage kids is not access to the Internet, but how they use it. The low-income kids use the Internet mostly for entertainment rather than useful tasks like schoolwork. So any program of this sort needs to include education and motivation for the children to get the best use out of the new resources.
Thomas Bradley, Poway
Columnist lacking logic
It looks like columnist Amy Sandberg (May 31) is proof that liberals can’t (or at least don’t) handle logic too well.
Thanks to blogger Dan Mitchell, we can see that Obama’s supposed frugality is largely the result of how TARP is measured in the federal budget. TARP pushed spending up in Bush’s final fiscal year and then repayments from the banks (which count as “negative spending”) artificially reduced spending in subsequent years. When you take that out, Obama is the second-worst spender. And besides that, because government is so big now, fiscal policy should be aiming at reducing spending, so any amount of increase is bad, and Obama is clearly increasing spending both now and long into the future.
Jonathan Schnell, Poway
How the GOP can raise cash
In May actor George Clooney hosted a fundraiser in his home for President Obama. In addition to the normal high-dollar donors you could purchase a lottery ticket for $3 where the winners received an all-expense paid trip to attend this gala event in Hollywood. This event was so popular that it generated $12 million dollars for President Obama.
Capitalizing on the success of this event, Donald Trump should throw a dinner for Republican candidate Mitt Romney in his New York home that also features a lottery to attract small-time donors. The only difference is in the prize. The second place winner would get to sit between “the Donald and Mitt.” The winner would not have to attend.
Bob Turner, Rancho Bernardo.
Vote for the candidate, not the party
I just don’t get it. We have so many voters that vote straight party lines. In politics there are really only two parties at this time. There are the Democrats, of which one-third of the most liberal Democrats set the Democrat Party’s agenda and platform, and the Republicans, of which the one-third of the most conservative Republicans set the Republican Party’s agenda and platform. I do not believe you can tell the difference between the other two-thirds of both parties.
Both parties control their moderates by campaigning or threatening to campaign against them. If a candidate votes with the other side the party picks someone else who will vote the party line and backs them. Neither party votes for what is best for the people, they consistently vote for the items that will block or keep the other party from looking good. Until we the people start voting for the candidates and what they believe in and not the party this country will continue to be “broken” and “broke
I encourage and plead with all voters to start voting for the candidate that truly wants to fix our country, rather than make the other guys look bad. We need short term limits and also campaign spending reform.
As I say, I don’t get it! Wake up America! I have dumped my political party. I suggest you do the same. We cannot continue to be Democrats or Republicans in order to succeed! We all need to be Americans.
Ron Wilson, Rancho Bernardo
Letter from the News Chieftain
Column only brings more grief
I received my weekly Chieftain and read Bob Emery’s June 7 column. I usually enjoy reading his comments about our community, but was disappointed about his comments on the latest tragedy that occurred on Highway 67. I understand weather conditions may have also been a factor in this crash. The driver may have been at fault but he did pay the ultimate price. Since the driver did not survive it is the family that are exposed to such comments. What a sad and difficult time for them. Mr. Emery’s comment does nothing but bring more grief to a family that is already in pain.
Lori Calabrese, Poway
Letters to the editor should be limited to 250 words. Email them to editor@pomeradonews.com.
Related posts:
Short URL: http://www.pomeradonews.com/?p=25829
Posted by Staff
on Jun 13 2012. Filed under Letters to the Editor, Opinion.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
To Lori Calabrese – the driver of the truck that caused the fatal was speeding. Speed caused the collision and FOUR fatalities. This was not an "accident" this was a crime scene caused by reckless and unsafe driving.
Dear Guest, I agree with you 100%.
Lori, what a difficult time for the drivers family? What about the many families the driver affected by his reckless disregard for their safety? This was completely avoidable. Sorry but Mr Emery's comment was just and true.
Dale, why are you framing this as a zero sum proposition? Are we only allowed to have sympathy for one family.? Have you ever exceeded the speed limit? Even if your answer is no, are we not allowed to have equal compassion for all the families affected?? Really?
Once again you've missed the boat. The cow never actually jumped over the moon. Something that's avoidable, means just that. Really…..
And NO, I don't speed. Especially during a light rain on a dangerous road.
Of course we feel bad for the kid's family. No one wakes up one morning and says I think I'll drive like a maniac and kill people.But we can't ignore the facts of the event. Reckless is reckless.
Ron: Most voters inherit their political proclivity just as they inherit their religious proclivity. Democrats are divided about equally between "moderates" and "liberals" and sometimes the moderates win (Bill Clinton) and sometimes the liberals win (President Obama.
The problem comes in the last few weeks when culturally-inclined Democrats and Republicans vote for their party line simply because they are Democrats or Republicans without much knowledge of any particular political positions.
We would all do well to draw a continuum between anarchy and statism, and determine where we are on that line — and vote accoringly. Unfortunately, that takes a bit more work that being just a Democrat or Republican — of which two I am neither.
Dear Mr. Schnell, Fiscal year 2009 was indeed special because it came amid an economic and financial free fall that drove the nation’s leaders to spend a lot more than they ordinarily would. Nutting, in his Wall Street Journal analysis, did take these factors into account, but he shifted $140 billion in fiscal 2009 spending from two of Obama’s signature programs — the economic stimulus package and an expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program — out of Bush’s column and into Obama’s. He also shifted excess spending beyond what Bush would have spent from the appropriations bills signed by Obama in 2009.
TARP involved a lot of money going out the door in fiscal 2009 and a lot of money coming in the door in subsequent years as the money was paid back to the treasury. Reasonable people can disagree whether TARP expenses should count in Bush’s column, thereby making Obama’s subsequent spending increases seem unrealistically small.
For the sake of argument let's say we combine the fiscal 2009 costs for programs that are either clearly or arguably Obama’s — the stimulus, the CHIP expansion, the incremental increase in appropriations over Bush’s level and TARP under Obama's column. This produces a shift from Bush to Obama of between $307 billion and $456.
That’s larger than Nutting’s $140 billion, but it would only raise Obama’s average annual spending increase from 1.4 percent to somewhere between 3.4 percent and 4.9 percent. That would place Obama either second from the bottom or third from the bottom out of the 10 most recent presidents.
Romney is lying when he says over and over that spending under Obama has "accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history." Even using your numbers, seven presidents had a higher average annual increases in spending.
How's that for logic?