Bookmark and Share

Letters to Editor


Dear Editor:

I have to respond to Brenda McCooey’s letter of 16 May 2011.

First, I like to read the exchanges between Jim Sawicki and Bob Dungan as they are extremely intelligent and express themselves quite well. You could learn something from them.

However, you really touched a nerve when you gave all of the credit for the demise of Bin Laden to the Democrats. Let’s be clear on this: neither Obama, nor the Democrats, killed Bin Laden. An American sailor, who Obama just a few weeks ago was debating on whether or not to pay, did. In fact, if you remember a little less than two years ago, his administration (Democrats) actually charged and court martialed three Navy SEALS when a terrorist suspect they captured complained they had punched him during the takedown and bloodied his nose. The SEALS did not take the easy way out and challenged the Administration and were exonerated. Obama’s administration further commented on how brutal they were. Now all of a sudden the very brave men they vilified are heroes when they make his administration look good in the eyes of the public. Obama just happened to be the one in office when the CIA tracked down Bin Laden. The Bush Administration, through interrogation methods that Obama outlawed, was the one that started the chase and our military took him out. This is not an Obama victory, but an American victory.

Franklin Anderson

Tea Party

Dear Editor:

Does the Tea Party have the answers to our economic problems? Well, they might be interested in knowing that as of September 2010, only 31.8 percent of our debt is owned by foreign countries while individuals and institutions in the United States own 42 percent. We’re not yet owned by China, but you could make a case for ownership by corporations. General Electric had worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, with only $5.1 billion coming from U.S. operations, paid no U.S. taxes and claimed a refund of $3.2 billion. Wouldn’t you think the Tea Party would “think” there was one or two budget issues? Nope.

More Tea Party shouts in the night. Rehash the failed theory of “trickle-down” stimulus. Look at it from a modern economic perspective — ”supply equals demand,” a simple equation that highlights the role of debt (the extent of debt also affects production, supply and demand). If supply is not equal to demand, then, like the airplane with unequal wings, the economy will crash some day. Here, supply refers to the value of goods produced in the entire economy, and demand means total spending or the value of goods consumed in the nation.

Stimulation means investment has to occur. Because of investment and new technology, productivity causes supply to rise year after year. This means that wages and demand must also rise, and in the same proportion. If wages trail productivity growth, supply exceeds demand, leading to overproduction. Businesses are unable to sell all that they produce and layoffs follow. Hence, the only cause of unemployment in an advanced economy is the rise in the gap between what you produce and what your employer pays you. Currently corporations are experiencing tremendous profits by squeezing higher productivity out of remaining U.S. employees without any significant new hires. About one in five of U.S. citizens are longterm unemployed. Tea Party position: ignore reality, cut corporate taxes and gov’t spending?

So now the question arises: Given where we are, who best-to-stimulate and how to do it? The only significant party left after we (Republicans and Democrats) tax incented our larger corporations to move their plants and tax base off shore is the U.S. government!. And the only way to do that smartly, given the new competitive world, is to balance spending cuts with new taxes and make strategic industry investments. Everybody has to pay more for less to win out.

So does the Tea Party have any value? Qualified yes. The possible value of the Tea Party is to be a vehicle to overcome social inertia.

It’s easy to see the Tea Party’s legitimate drivers of protest, but there is no clue of the what, why, how and destructive destination they advocate. Hopefully they will be a bridge to collective change.

Dave Blake


Dear Editor:

My husband and I flipped our raft going through town on Memorial Day.

We tried to wrestle the boat to shore, an impossible task. When we finally let it go and made it to the river’s edge ourselves we were along the steep bank beside Sixth Street. By then we were pretty beat up and unable to do much but cling to rocks and brush.

We are very grateful to all the people who helped us: the man driving by who saw my feeble wave from the water’s edge and stopped “just in case” and who called county dispatch, the others who stopped to help, the emergency people who responded to the 911 call and pulled my husband out of the water and up the bank, the EMT people who warmed us up in the ambulance and monitored our incipient hypothermia and took us to our car, and the people from Pagosa Outside whitewater rafting company who recovered our raft about six miles downstream. Without all of them our day might have had a very different outcome. Thanks, all of you!

Katherine Cruse


Dear Editor:

I must do two things strange to my conscience — first to agree with Jim Sawicki and second to defend Jim Sawicki.

My compliments go to Jim on his Memorial Day message urging us to remember and respect the sacrifices made by our military personnel and their families. Jim’s messages around Memorial Day and Veterans Day are appropriate remembrances of those who sacrificed that we all might be free to pursue lives, religions and livelihoods of our own choosing.

My defense of Jim arises from Brenda McCooey’s letter of last week asking why the Pagosa Springs SUN spreads Jim’s message so often. Simply put, we want the news media to minimize its filtering of what we see and read in the public media.

Jim does not speak alone as others in our community agree with and support his opinions. So, I hope The SUN continues to publish Jim’s writings. Freedom of speech and ideas provide that public exchange by which citizens can decide which ideals best represent their interests.

Speech is free only when repugnant speech is defended. I often find Jim’s written speech repugnant, and I imagine he would say something similar about mine. Hopefully we will both find a public forum for our ideas, and citizens with cooler heads will decide the best course of action for our community and country — as has occurred since the founding of our Republic.

Jay Davison


Dear Editor:

Sunday, May 29 — another Memorial Day celebration is on and my 90-year old mother called, as she always does on Sunday afternoons. She tells me how much she has been enjoying the WW II vintage movies and how that was her era, the clothes, the music and all.

My mother is the ultimate positive thinker, but, as every year, I detect a wisp of sadness in her voice and know she is remembering her only brother, my uncle, Lal Crain Blanchard, Jr. He was an artillery officer and was a forward observer in a unit that supported the first infantry unit to land on Utah Beach in Normandy, maybe the first Allied unit to land on D-day. He was killed in action two days later near St. Mare Eglise.

I was born in October of that year and throughout my life have heard stories about my mother’s brother from her and other family members. My favorite uncle is a man I never met. Thank you to all of you veterans.

Thank you,

Lal Echterhoff


Dear Editor:

Why do people steal?

The Woman’s Civic Club had its annual bazaar storage unit broken into. We do not know when the theft occurred, but it was between the middle of January and May 27. Items that were used to raise funds for the Ruby Sisson Memorial Library were taken from the unit.

To the person(s) who stole: Did you find a use for our name tags and signs? Do you really need custom-sized large table clothes? Did you sell, keep or pawn the empty cash boxes, empty baskets or the merchandise we were going to use for our raffle baskets? We hope you used the $150 taken from the wreaths for something you really needed, and not just for some frivolous whim.

We do thank you for leaving our street banner and the pegboards.

Please feel free to make an anonymous donation to the library on your behalf. There is a “conscience jar” for donations at the circulation desk. No one will know. In addition, please feel free to leave anything you took that you may still have at one of the library doors before it opens, or put the items in the book drop.

Dear Community: We know this has happened to others and know that you will come and support us at the 37th annual Bazaar on Nov. 5, 2011. We will continue raising money for our library.

Jennifer Hedrick


Dear Editor:

Somehow, I jist don’t think that Ms. Brenda McCooey gets it.

When you cross a crooked politician with a crooked lawyer; you get Barack Hussein Obama.

Could it be that McCooey is far left progressive? Which surely equates to a metastasizing malignancy on America’s colon.

Jim Sawicki


Dear Editor:

You are to be congratulated on taking on a most controversial subject of freedom and security. There are many points of view.

Unfortunately, you refer to the Constitution granting our rights, which is untrue. In fact, the opposite is true.

Referring to, “the people of the United States,” (preamble), article I section 1 states ”All legislative powers herein GRANTED . . . “ So the people granted certain limited powers to the federal government.

It is thought by some that the bill of rights, or the first ten amendments, contains all the rights we have. But look at amendment 9: “The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The rest of the editorial comes as a needed and sober warning. As Jim Sawicki said, we need to remember. And this is not only those who have given their lives in the cause of freedom, but to remember our heritage and how our freedom was won. Freedom is the natural right of each one of us. This means to me, unrestricted thought speech and activity, provided it does not interfere with the freedom of others.

The Constitution is the framework in which the Federal Government is supposed to operate, and its purpose is to protect our rights. Each one of us should study and be aware of the Constitution.

Clive Lamprell

Golden, Colo.

blog comments powered by Disqus