Bookmark and Share

Letters to the Editor


Dear Editor;

Editor Karl wrote an editorial May, 12, 2011, saying our national dilemma is “not all about reducing our debt,” that we need to borrow and spend to educate the unemployed for our changing work requirements. The need is real, but ...

The liberal author Robert Reich summed it up in his book, “Aftershock,” simply by saying that, “We have been living beyond our means.” Politicians have been spending for votes, but they have not paid their way; it’s simpler to borrow.

Senator Tom Coburn, in his book, “The Debt Bomb” (a copy of which I placed in our local library for anyone that cares to understand how Washington has allowed the debt to accumulate), implies that it may be too late, “the hole is too deep and the sides are too steep.”

Addison Wiggin, three-time NYT bestselling author, said, “There’s not a snowball’s chance in hell we will ever be able to pay this money back to our lenders. I say that with 100 percent confidence.”

Mr. Walker, appointed by President Bill Clinton, served as Comptroller General of the United States and head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) from 1998 to 2008 said: “You cannot spend trillions of dollars more than you take in ... without someday having a day of reckoning.”

Bernanke says the government’s borrowing was at “clearly unsustainable” levels, warning that its wild budget deficits increase the possibility of a sudden fiscal crisis which is creeping “ever closer.”

In May of 2009 shortly after his swearing in, at meeting in New Mexico President Obama said : “We can’t keep on just borrowing from China.” “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt,” calling our current deficit spending “unsustainable” and suggesting that sooner or later the buyers of U.S. debt will “get tired.”

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul predicted that the United States will default on its debt, plain and simple. “When a country is indebted to the degree that we’re indebted, the country always defaults,” he said from the House floor. “We will default because the debt is unsustainable.”

January 2007 when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid assumed their constitutionally defined responsibility for spending, taxing and borrowing, our debt was $8.68 trillion (the accumulation of 220 years of “money managing”). Today, less than six years later, it has nearly doubled at $16.2 trillion.

In Joe Biden’s recent debate he said that Romney planned to waste $50 billion per year by not taxing the very rich. When the Bush tax cuts were expiring in December 2010, Obama, Pelosi and Reid extended them to all, including the very rich; for political reasons they missed an opportunity to pick up $100 billion!

July 27, 2012, the president sent to Congress his “Mid-Session Review” outlining his ten-year budget plans showing total additional deficits of $8.306 trillion by 2022 and an average deficit of $862 billion for the next four years.

Informed voters make wise decisions.

Harris Bynum

Equal rights

Dear Editor:

I have been privileged in over 50 years of adult life to know and work with a number of gay and lesbian individuals including neighbors and co-workers. Many of these have been in long-term, steady and loving relationships with their partners. They contribute to the arts, business, education and many professions. I take very seriously the statement by Jesus when asked what were the greatest commandments in the Jewish Torah and he said that loving your neighbor and loving your God superseded all others. I have voted on the basis of the important national and international issues of today including the issue of equal rights for all — this is one of my great hopes for our nation. I take some comfort in the fact that future generations now growing up do not seem to fear granting equal rights to all our citizens.

Tom Cruse

Our choice

Dear Editor:

Our close presidential election will be decided next Tuesday; although, it could be close enough that we won’t know the results for an extended period.

Having watched the way leaders gain power in other parts of the world, I’m thankful to live in a country where the rule of law decides these issues. I’m also thankful we feel free to express our opinions and support the candidates we believe best suited to govern.

But, what is our choice after the election?

If the candidate of our choice is elected, will we spend our energies punishing the minority party? If our candidate is not elected, will we spend our energies obstructing the chosen leaders at every opportunity?

Or, will we choose to view those with different opinions as the “loyal opposition” and consider the merit their ideas? Will we decide that “compromise” is not dirty word and direct our legislators to craft laws acceptable to both parties?

The answer is up to us as citizens, and our elected leaders will know our answer by listening to our voices and reading our writings.

If we believe “a house divided against itself cannot stand” (Abraham Lincoln), then our conversations and writings will urge our leaders to find solutions to our problems regardless of political party affiliation. On the other hand, if we believe crafting political solutions to be a zero-sum game where one side wins and the other loses, then our choice will be to perpetuate the current environment of negative political discourse and legislative gridlock.

Our leaders govern by the consent of the governed. So, after Nov, 6, it’s up to us to set the tenor and tone of our legislative processes. If we are truly tired of all the negative political ads and infighting, then we will spend some effort changing the political environment in which our laws are crafted.

The choice is ours. I hope we will chose to honor the Preamble to our Constitution by lowering the violence in our rhetoric and work to “form a more perfect union” and “insure domestic tranquility.”

Jay Davison


Dear Editor:

Last year saw the beginning of the Scott Kay Memorial Fund, an effort dedicated to providing middle school students the opportunity to go skiing at Wolf Creek.

We began this fund in memory of Scott Kay, Wolf Creek’s ski patrol director, who lost his life in an avalanche two years ago. Scott was incredibly passionate about skiing and he loved to see young kids experience such a unique sport.

We are trying to carry on Scott’s legacy by funding scholarships for as many students as we can through the middle school ski program. Last year, thanks to our main fund-raiser (silent auction and movie) and the incredible amount of donations we received for the auction, we were able to fund about 130 scholarships! This year, we are hoping to raise even more. Depending on our level of success, there is a possibility we will be able to fund a scholarship for the local Avalanche School that would be awarded to a student in Pagosa.

We have huge hopes for the Scott Kay Memorial Fund this year, but first comes our fund-raising. On Nov. 8, we will be showing the premiere of the 2012 ski movie the “Super Heroes of Stoke,” at the Liberty Theatre in Pagosa Springs. This movie comes to us from Matchstick Productions and you can check out the trailer at We will have two showings of the movie: one at 6 p.m. and again at 8:30 p.m. There will be many door prizes and free giveaways. Ticket prices will be $10 for adults and children 5 years and younger get in free. All proceeds from the evening will go to the Scott Kay Memorial Fund. Please come and check out all of our great winter items. We hope to see you there. Also, please continue to check the paper for more fund-raisers benefitting the Scott Kay Memorial Fund.

Devyn Doctor


Dear Editor:

Archuleta County’s economy is troubled. We need good jobs.

Archuleta County was just certified by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment as having the fifth worst “Not Employed Rate” in the state. Almost 20 percent of those over 18 years of age that are ready, willing and able to work, can’t find a job.

According to Region 9 EDD, Archuleta had a per capita personal income that ranked 55th in the state and was only 70 percent of the state average. Twenty-four percent of our residents are uninsured. We have a poverty rate of 13 percent and 51 percent of the children in the county qualify for free and reduced lunches. Twenty percent of our residents make $25,000 or less per year.

Because our county’s troubled economy, community nonprofits fill in the gaps to provide critical services — daycare and early childcare education for kids, education and workforce training for our teens and young adults, food and housing programs for the elderly, the young and those in need of food assistance because of low incomes and unemployment and so much more. These are not organizations simply looking for a “handout” from the county. They are organizations giving a “hand up” to our community.

The Pagosa Springs CDC is also doing its part, working to provide good jobs for our community to help break our cycle of poverty and further diversify our local economy. Last year we’ve helped to create or retain 107 jobs and we have more in the pipeline for the next year. We are close to getting the old City Market Plaza donated to the community and we have kicked off a downtown revitalization effort in partnership with the Chamber.

Property tax revenues are predicted to be down 15-25 percent next year, but saying “no” to non-profits to cut 0.10 percent out of a $26M-plus county budget is not an effective way to balance our reduced budget next year.

Good jobs would reduce the needs, but meantime, funding these organizations is not a frivolous expense for the county — it is a necessity. A true leader would recognize that we need to balance the budget by seeking efficiencies in local government and elsewhere while continuing to support critical community programs.

Mr. Lucero brags of a $5.8M General Fund surplus. In actuality, only $2.3M is surplus and the rest is reserves and working capital, but why not commit some of that to funding critical programs?

Look around. Are you happy with where we are after Mr. Lucero’s and Mr. Wadley’s tenure? Can we really afford four more years under current “leadership?” This BoCC has used the same old, tired solutions to the same old problems — the ones that never get solved. They aren’t offering anything new.

We deserve better. It is time to try new, fresh ideas and approaches if we want a better result. That is why I endorse Mike Hayward and Julie Simmons for county commissioner. I believe these two candidates have the proven business skills to lead our county to a more prosperous future.

Muriel Eason

Editor’s note: In the interest of a candidate’s favorite term — “transparency” — it must be noted Ms. Eason is the wife of candidate Hayward.


Dear Editor:

I am a veteran and an active voter. My grandfather, father, brother and I all served in the U.S. Navy. In the service you learn the benefit of teamwork and commitment to your shipmates and your ship. Our world and especially our nation is our ship. Together we move forward, that is why fair wages and working conditions, education, health care, energy conservation and development, an effective social safety net are essential to the strength and stability or our great country.

That is why I strongly support and am working for the election of President Obama, Sal Pace, Mike McLachlan, Clifford Lucero and Steve Wadley, yes mostly Democrats. I am voting for these candidates as I believe that they are working for the advancement and success of all Americans. We cannot afford to ignore 10 or 20 or 47 percent of our fellow Americans, our “shipmates” in the historical voyage of the USA. We need to care for and count on every one: the wealthy, middle class and lower income. We need to make health care, education (from preschool to university) quality and affordable. There are many things that free enterprise can do well, but there is a lot we need from good and well managed government. Obama inherited a mess, but we are coming back. In reality, we are doing better than Europe or Asia.

That is why I support Obama for president, Sal Pace for U.S. Representative, and the others mentioned above. This is a crucial election as it is a referendum on how we see each other: as competitors or “shipmates.” Ask anyone who has served, the person next to you is essential for your safety and success. Let’s move forward together.

So please vote for the “ship” not just your self-interest.

Raymond P. Finney


Dear Editor:

The fellow buying advertising about gas prices, might do better with his money to purchase a newspaper and read that presidents have little influence over said prices. I’m not going to explain it, but I pray folks who read his advert will investigate the reality for themselves.

Also, if we don’t “become a Muslim country,” perhaps we’ll become a Mormon country — all nonsense.

Oh my, the fear mongering(!) it’s frightening — ha ha.

I am counting the days till this election is over

Addi Greer


Dear Editor:

I have come across two more heroes I want to mention. I do not know either of these gentlemen, but their picture was in the paper. It seems that they donated time and goods to do concrete work at the skate park. This is one example of the “behind the scenes” gifts that happen every day in this wonderful town. Thank you, Brian Fulbright and Scott Musgrove.

Cindy Gustafson


Dear Editor:

Congressman Tipton’s latest ad again attacks Sal Pace for a vote Tipton himself made! This ad continues his 100-percent negative campaign strategy while misleading his constituents about his own record. Tipton supported just such a measure in the state House.

James Dakin Owens, the Pace campaign’s communications director, has said, “Every single one of Congressman Tipton’s ads has been an attack on policies that he himself has voted for. [His] painful contortions of his own record do nothing to provide solutions to the very real problems facing our country, and they are only further evidence of how out of touch he is. Tripling down on a strategy that attacks your opponent for something you have done yourself? This approach reeks of desperation.”

Tipton’s claims have been rebutted by the Grand Junction Sentinel, 3/29/2012. “While Pace did vote along with other lawmakers in 2009 and 2010 not to fund the property tax break during those years because of the recession, so did Tipton, at least in 2010. That year […] he voted along with all 65 members of the House to approve SB190. Unlike the 2009 measure that suspended the break for one year, the 2010 bill did so for two years.”

In addition, Sal Pace wrote the law which cuts taxes for Colorado ranchers and farmers. According to the Glenwood Springs Post Independent, 5/22/2012, “The other bill, HB 12-1042, sponsored by Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass Village, and Pace, establishes an income tax credit for those who inherit agricultural land in Colorado and keep it in agricultural use. The credit is equal to the amount an inheritor had paid in state inheritance taxes, and is meant to alleviate pressure on those landowners who might otherwise be forced to sell off parts of ranches or farms in order to pay off outstanding tax bills.”

And, if that’s not enough to make you cast a vote for Sal Pace, Tipton voted for a plan which would raise taxes on families making under $200,000 a year. “He would cut taxes by roughly $4.6 trillion (according to a Tax Policy Center analysis just put out), with most of the tax cuts going to people earning more than $200,000.” (Economic Policy Institute, 3/20/2012.) This would result in a tax hike for the majority of households which earn less than $200,000 a year. This is because for households making less than $200,000, removing the tax deductions, making 401(k) contributions subject to taxes, and eliminating the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance outweigh the financial benefit of the lower marginal rate.

Sal Pace’s campaign has run only positive ads which tell us who Sal is, what he stands for, and what his accomplishments are. Contrast this with Scott Tipton’s unrelenting attack ads against Sal, without a single positive ad about his own successes. He never defines what he is for. What does that tell us about Tipton? Perhaps, he doesn’t think his right wing record in Congress really supports southwest Colorado values.

Becky Herman


Dear Editor:

A letter in last week’s paper suggested voters should vote for Christian values, and then ended the letter with a statement implying that President Barack Obama is a Muslim. That is a blatant lie. Lying is not a Christian value.

Obama says he is a Christian and has spoken more about his faith while in office than any other sitting president, yet people think it is okay to perpetuate the lie that he is Muslim. It is not okay. Who are you or me to judge whether someone is a Christian. That judgment is left up to God.

President Obama has fought for the poor and middle class ever since he came into office. This is a Christian value.

On the other hand, Mitt Romney has run a campaign based on lies and deceit. This is not a Christian value.

Romney has changed his stance at least once on every issue he has discussed. He ran for governor as pro-choice in order to get elected and then changed his mind when he got into office. He cannot be trusted. No telling what he will do on a whole host of issues if he were to be elected.

We need to remember that making abortions illegal will not stop abortions from taking place. It only means those young women will have to resort to back-alley unscrupulous doctors who will perform unsafe procedures, putting women’s lives at risk. Do we really want to return to the 1950s and 1960s when women died from these types of abortions?

Regardless of who is elected president, they cannot repeal Roe v. Wade. It will take another court ruling. The Supreme Court based the Roe v. Wade decision on an individual’s constitutional right to privacy. If the court decided to reverse that decision and strip away citizens’ constitutional rights, the repercussions would be far more reaching than this discussion. We would be on a slippery slope that would eventually end in a revolution of the people.

Statistics have shown the only way to reduce abortions is through education, free or low cost healthcare and contraceptives for these young people, both women and men. This is the stance that President Obama has taken, and I agree with it. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.?

So, back to voting Christian values. If you want a president who wants to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer, then Romney is your man.

If you want someone who will continue to fight for the poor and the middle class, returning this nation from the brink of destruction left by the prior administration, then vote for President Obama.

?And, if the reason you don’t want to vote for the president is the color of his skin, then shame on you and your Christian values.

Sara Hoklotubbe


Dear Editor:

Clearly I am just a lying Republican who never had an original thought in his life and can only parrot what I hear on Bill O’Reilly. So, I decided not to call the President a bald-faced liar and instead offer you a summary of the Benghazi Timeline that you can find at and which was posted by Eugene Kiely on Friday, Oct. 26, 2012 — go online and check out the details yourself.

The question won’t go away: Did President Obama and administration officials mislead the public when they initially claimed that the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began “spontaneously” in response to an anti-Muslim video?

The question surfaced again on Oct. 25 — more than six weeks after the incident — when government emails showed the White House and the State Department were told even as the attack was going on that Ansar al-Sharia, a little-known militant group, had claimed credit for it.

We cannot say whether the administration was intentionally misleading the public. We cannot prove intent. There is also more information to come — both from the FBI, which is conducting an investigation, and Congress, which has been holding hearings.

But, at this point, we do know that Obama and others in the administration were quick to cite the anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause for the attack in Benghazi that killed four U.S. diplomats, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. And they were slow to acknowledge it was a premeditated terrorist attack, and they downplayed reports that it might have been.

What follows is a timeline of events that we hope will help put the incident into perspective. We call attention in particular to these key facts:

There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.

Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.

Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” … Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”

Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24.?

We now know from other reporting the administration had “eyes on” “real-time” information from the beginning of the attack via the drones that were overhead in Benghazi and, that, since an ambassador was under attack and missing it is not possible that the president had not been informed immediately.

Jim Huffman


Dear Editor:

The published inflation rate today is under 2 percent. Price of food is going thru the roof. Gas has doubled in four years. Oh, did you know that food and fuel is not included in the official rate of inflation? The poor and those struggling to get by have to spend most of their income on what? I think it would be food and fuel, but thanks to our government’s out of control spending, the value of our dollar is quickly becoming worthless.

The big lie today is that the poor are suffering because of the rich not doing their share. The Democrat party would have you believe that they are all in for the working poor. If that were true, they would have done something about the spending which is the real reason the money is becoming worthless and the reason the poor are getting even more poor. The money they do get buys less each day. Inflation is the most cruel tax of all because the poor are the ones hurt most by it.

Democrats haven’t offered to cut one penny from spending because that is how they buy votes. What they really care about is being in power and in power at any cost. All of this vile propaganda is being supported by a totally biased national media. If you have doubt about media bias, all you had to do is watch the recent second debate to see that Crowley person jump in to save her hero when he was caught in his big lie about what happened to the Libyan Ambassador. Four years ago, there appeared out of nowhere this guy Obama who had not one thing on his resume that would suggest in any way that he was qualified to become president. But all of a sudden without ever really being seriously investigated, there he was holding the most powerful office in the world. His total incompetence becomes more apparent each day.

Despite the lies being spread around, the economy is totally stagnant. This week alone, there were numerous major companies announcing huge layoffs. There are more people unemployed today than there were four years ago. Eighteen million more people are on food stamps. Sixty percent increase of the national debt in just four years. This is now 16 trillion dollars and most of it printed by a complicit federal reserve. Our children and grandchildren will have to become slaves to the govt to deal with the awful debt that has been created by this unrepentant bunch of spenders of other peoples money. We cannot take four more years of this. Please vote for Mitt Romney on Nov. 6.

Jerry Kissick


Dear Editor:

With another election just around the corner, it appears we once again have “politics as usual” — mud-slinging, slandering opponents, debates over issues that never seem to change and candidates asking us to place hope in what seem to be hopeless situations.

Are we destined to keep going in circles, repeating the same old conditioned patterns over and over again? Perhaps it is time to stop the merry-go-round and get off, put the power back into the hands of the people by casting a vote for the one thing that really can change everything.

This vote has nothing to do with parties, politics or platforms that serve to divide and conquer. The only vote that will truly change the world is the vote each of us has the prerogative to make on a daily basis in our own lives. The Vote to Love! Choosing love for self, love for others and love for our planet, every moment of every day is the vote that returns the responsibility and the power to create a better world to the individual. There is no doubt it is time for change, so why not choose to be the change? Vote love. Do it now. Take it viral.

Andrea Lyle


Dear Editor:

To the undecided voter:

Just listening to the two presidential candidates trading accusations makes it hard to decide for whom you should vote. Romney’s primary criticism of the past four years under President Obama is that the economy has not improved enough. Please consider a few factors.

First, the recession of 2008 was the worst the U.S. has seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s. What really got the U.S. out of that economic crisis was not limited action by the government, but the nationwide, concerted buildup for WWII. That took over five years on a war footing. That scale of government spending makes the 11 trillion we have spent since Obama took office look like chump change.

Second, Sen. Mitch McConnell, on Obama’s inauguration day, dedicated the Republican party to preventing Obama’s re-election. The GOP has tried its best, limiting the economic stimulus, resisting the auto bailout, pushing our government to the brink of insolvency, and more recently, prohibiting extension of the tax credits for wind energy, which has directly resulted in the loss of hundreds of jobs in Colorado, Iowa and other states.

The GOP has let our economy flounder and people suffer economic hardship to regain the presidency. Finally, even the conservative British business magazine The Economist has called on the U.S. to resist austerity measures Rep. Ryan has championed, and to provide more stimulus through government investments in road, bridges, etc.

How could anyone vote for any candidate of the party whose policies caused the recession, and has willfully extended economic hardship for our citizens, all the while criticizing Obama for not accomplishing enough?

Robert F. Matthias

Boulder, Colo.

Pants on fire

Dear Editor:

Early on, my mother told me, “You are known by the company you keep.” Sage advice that prevented me no undue trouble, in my later years, as I rubbed shoulders with all kinds of characters.

I was reminded of those words last week as I filled out my ballot, considering the company I would keep during the next four years, pondering the character of the two men running for president.

I’m not so naive to think there is not a certain amount of balderdash during an election; indeed, it’s a hackneyed joke that candidates are going to dump a ton of manure on the voters. Unfortunately, while hip waders were all that was needed to get through past elections, this year requires a snorkel.

Last week, the independent organization, PolitiFact, compared statements made by?President Obama?and?Vice President Biden?against those made by Mitt Romney?and?Paul Ryan (as of Oct. 21), and the contrast was striking. While Obama/Biden recorded 45 percent “True” and “Mostly True” statements during this campaign, Romney/Ryan were at just 29.1 percent. Conversely, when looking at “False,” “Mostly False” and “Pants on Fire,” Romney/Ryan were at 43.9 percent, with Obama/Biden at just 28.8 percent. In fact, Romney and Ryan logged over four times as many “Pants on Fire” lies as the president and vice president; Romney owns 58.6 percent of the total amount of “Pants on Fire” lies — more than all the candidates combined.

Those numbers don’t include Romney’s latest whopper, saying that Chrysler’s Jeep operation in Ohio was closing its doors and heading for China. In fact, Chrysler responded by saying that it was actually adding 1,100 jobs with no intention of closing its doors. Yet, instead of walking back the lie, Romney doubled down and lied some more.

From a nebulous “Tax Plan” (which the Tax Policy Center and other analysts have maintained would actually provide a windfall for the richest Americans while shifting the burden onto the middle class), to denying he would have let the auto industry go bankrupt, Romney has shown countless times that he will say anything to win. No wonder Norm Ornstein, a political scientist at the right-wing American Enterprise Institute, recently said, “I think there’s nobody like Romney. Romney is like the Michael Phelps of presidential candidates, if you’re looking for gold medals in terms of audacious lying … I’m sure others (in the past) would’ve liked to have done it, but the culture in the past was one where lying attracted some level of approbation and shame.”

Look, there are several reasons why a voter would cast their lot for Romney, from the execrable (finding a black man as president unacceptable) to the mundane (never voting anything but Republican). However, if Mom was right and we are indeed known by the company we keep, Romney supporters will have to reconcile their votes for the biggest liar in any U.S. presidential election.

Jim McQuiggin

Peoria, Ariz.


Dear Editor:

I am voting for Pace for the 3rd Congressional District. Here’s why.

Problem solving vs. ideological purity.

I like problem solving, getting things done. Mr. Pace has shown over and over that he favors practicality over ideology. He is a moderate that values practical problem solving over position-taking, especially when those positions are dictated by a national party that may have little to do with what Colorado values (cleaning up the up-stream sources of pollution for Pueblo, getting domestic steel used for Colorado construction projects, finding millions more for schools while maintaining a balanced budget). As he has shown in the Colorado House, he will represent everyone in the district, not just those who agree with the party line. Rep. Tipton votes for the Ryan budget time and again without any effort to modify its most extreme provisions. He has signed Grover Norquist’s so-called Taxpayer Protection Pledge and he follows John Boehner’s bidding almost without exception. That has more to do with the D.C. club than the interests of the western slope and the families in Colorado. Vote for Pace.

Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security.

Pace is for ensuring that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are financially robust and enduring programs. He is against attempts to privatize Social Security, cuts in Social Security designed simply to balance the budget, as well as cuts that would lower the retirement income. Pace knows there are fixes for Social Security and Medicare that are incremental and can work; no need for radical, ideological action. In 2010 Tipton campaigned on “No cuts, no privatization, no scaring seniors,” but then he voted for the Ryan budgets that would make Medicare a voucher system costing seniors more across time, block-granting Medicaid to the states with the effect of throwing tens of millions individuals off the program, and privatizing Social Security putting retirement funds at risk in the financial markets. Vote for Pace.

Economic recovery and the national budget.

Mr. Pace knows that the path to economic vitality is two-pronged. In the immediate future we need to stimulate demand; in the long run we need to address the budget deficit. To institute stringent measures of austerity in a recovering economy will stifle growing demand, and throw the country back into Bush’s recession. Stimulate growth, get people back to work, and demand will accelerate us through this growing recovery. Tipton favors cutting the budget by 1/3 to 1/2. Even if you don’t mind what this means for Colorado children and families, strangling the economy through ideological budget cuts will do what it has done in Europe — failing economies unable to bootstrap themselves out of recession. When we are growing, that is the time to address the deficit with strength and practicality. Vote for Pace.

Terry Pickett


Dear Editor:

As you go to vote, I ask you to think about a few things:

Contrary to Republicans’ assertions, more jobs are being created each month and the unemployment rate is falling. We still have a long way to go, but we are on the right path to recovery. Contrast this to the 800,000 jobs being lost each month and a rocketing unemployment rate when President Obama took office. Romney has a “plan,” but we don’t know the details. The math just doesn’t add up. Haven’t we tried trickle down economics before without success?

The stock market has doubled under President Obama and is now at near record levels, good news if you have a 401K plan or own stocks or mutual funds. Our retirement is much more secure than four years ago. And the president will never support a plan that turns Medicare into a voucher program, costly for seniors

The economy is growing, last month at a 2-percent pace. Contrast this to the 8-percent contraction the month the president took office. The auto industry is humming along at a record pace, due to the rescue effort started under Bush and expanded under Obama. Oh, I know that the Romney campaign would have us believe that he really didn’t want the auto industry to go belly up. However, everything I have read in the automobile press says that Romney’s plan for privately financed bankruptcy would not have worked, because private funding was just not available. The self-proclaimed “auto guy” got it dead wrong.

Gas prices have dropped nearly 50 cents per gallon over the past few weeks. If we are going to blame the president for price rises, I guess we have to credit him when prices fall. By the way, gas reached over $4.10/gallon in 2008 under oil man Bush. As to the pace of oil drilling on federal lands and federally approved offshore drilling sites, it did drop slightly in 2011, a decrease that U.S. DOE attributes to the impact of the catastrophic Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Despite that one-year drop in production, oil production on federal lands has averaged 75,000 barrels per year more than during Bush’s second term. Natural gas production on federal lands is also higher now than it was at the end of the Bush administration. So, Romney’s assertion that “All of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land,” is an absolute falsehood.

The “etch a sketch” description of Romney seems very appropriate. He apparently will say and do anything to get elected. He was pro-choice, pro-environment, pro health care when he was running for governor of Massachusetts. Then, he was a far-right ideologue when he was running in primaries against more extreme right-wing ideologues. Now, he is trying to convince independent voters that he is some sort of moderate. Which is the real Mitt Romney? I’m not sure even he knows!

John Porco


Dear Editor:

I take great offense at Sandy Bramwell’s “True Christians” Letter to the Editor in your 10/25/12 issue.

Ms. Bramwell states, “True Christians will not vote for anyone that supports abortions and homosexuality.” Well, I have been a Christian for many years, noted for my strong faith in God, and I did vote for candidates who support abortion as a result of rape or a woman’s health. I’d be quite concerned about the rapist’s DNA and drug use and I’d race to get the “morning after” pill if I was raped. Our adopted son was the child of a mother who used IV drugs, etc. throughout her pregnancy and raising him was a nightmare. He is the love of our lives, but I wouldn’t dare go through such an experience again.

In addition, I taught fourth grade and had a young boy come to me during recess and ask what “gay” meant. There is no way that this boy chose to be a homosexual (if indeed that’s what occurred.) You don’t choose your sex or your sexual orientation, any more than you choose your race, nationality, gifts and talents. They are all God-given, modeled after God, and my God would not choose a life of grief for any of his children over sexuality or race, etc.

I believe that a true Christian would be asking herself “What would Jesus do?” How would He treat a woman who had an abortion for such a reason? How would He treat a gay man who is serving our country or a gay woman who gives to others continually?

I believe that the New Testament is not to be applied literally to our current world. Yes, follow Jesus’ example and love others as you love yourself. But if we are to follow the Bible/New Testament as written, then we need to bring back slavery and a lot more.?

I also can’t imagine that Ms. Bramwell is a true Christian when she advises others, “to be careful with your vote if you do not want to become Muslim.” I’d like to know if I’ll become a Muslim by standing next to one; is it like the flu?

Christians are taught that Mormonism is a sect and not Christianity, but I’m guessing that she’d prefer a Mormon president than a non-Muslim president who has served our country so well. My understanding is that Mormons believe that God lives on or very nearby to the planet Kolob. Doesn’t sound like Christianity to me. (Note, I have no problem with a Mormon president; just dislike a candidate who changes his positions constantly.)

A Christian is someone who wants to be more Christlike. I am a Christian and would appreciate an apology from Mrs. Bramwell.

Tozi Rubin

That’s all

Dear Editor:

“We’re on a mission to move this nation forward, from doubt and downturn to promise and prosperity, a mission I guarantee you we will complete … And, folks, because of the decisions he (Obama) has made … America has turned a corner.” — Joe Biden, Democrat convention speech, 9/6/12.

However, whatever the regime is telling you, the truth is precisely the opposite. There is no “corner.” The jobs trajectory is all downward; stupid and wobbly are losin’ the race, badly. The Obama regime has taken a recession and turned it into a depression. This is what happens whenever socialism is in charge. The one thing you can say about Obama is that he’s been an equal opportunity destroyer of jobs and income.

Obama and his leftist czar team will quarrel with you about it because the very nature of capitalism, the engine of wealth creation, infuriates them. Obama’s entire campaign consists of trying to scare his pathetic base: “Eeeevil businessmen are trying to make a profit. And create jobs! Shun them! And then vote for me, Barack ‘You Didn’t Build That’ Obama.”

That’s all he’s got.

Jim Sawicki


Dear Editor:

I was wondering if Muriel Eason would name these “Pagosa Good Ole Boys” whom she seems to strongly imply control all of us who live in this community?

I don’t mean who she thinks they supposedly are, but can or will she name them specifically? I want to know, just in case I see one of them walking down the street and need to cross over to the other side to avoid them.

Carl Smith


Dear Editor:

As we approach election day, six weeks since four Americans were killed in Benghazi, the Obama administration is still struggling to cover up what really happened there, claiming the investigation is still “on going.” By now the reason for this is crystal clear, they still have not found a plausible way to disassociate themselves from responsibility for what happened. So far none of their excuses have held water, however, and by now it is clear they cannot escape what has been evident all along: they reacted so slowly and ineptly to the situation that they must accept responsibility. This has been made obvious due to leakage of information that the State Department turned down repeated requests for additional security for our consulate in Benghazi and then, during the night of the attack, someone in the Pentagon (perhaps the Commander-in-Chief himself) reportedly refused to respond to three urgent requests for immediate military support. Of course, the mainstream media, always more concerned about covering up for Obama than reporting the facts, has only reluctantly begun to report on some of the circumstances surrounding this tragic loss of lives.

This is just the latest, but certainly one of the most serious situations Obama has had to deal with, but, hey, it’s just a “bump in the road” he said. What the hell, it was only four lives and he can’t allow this to impede what is really important, his reelection.Therefore, if you voted for Obama four years ago and his incredibly blatantly irresponsible attitude toward security and loss of American lives doesn’t bother you, vote for him again. But be careful you and your loved ones don’t place yourselves in danger’s way for him. If he has to make a choice between you and a vote, you’re toast!

Don’t take a chance with being thrown under one of Obama’s million dollar campaign buses, vote for an honorable and responsible man, vote for Mitt Romney!

Gary Stansbury

Common sense

Dear Editor:

At the Archuleta Farm Bureau candidate forum Sept. 25th, Democrat candidate for 59th House District Representative Mike McLachlan stated that he supported a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion and?a citizen’s?right to keep and bear arms as rights existing equally in the U. S. Constitution.

His opponent, rancher J. Paul Brown, is a pro-life Republican who needless to say also supports the Second Amendment.

McLachlan, a lawyer, underestimated his audience’s ability to distinguish a right the Founding Fathers unambiguously gave us in the?Bill of Rights in 1791?from a right seven of nine justices fabricated out of judicial whole?cloth in 1973, claiming they had?found it?cryptically hidden in the 14th Amendment. This difference in perspective helps explain the lawyer’s negative attack on the rancher as being an “ideologue.”

I, for one, think the lawyer is promoting a judicial activist ideology, and that we need more common sense?ranchers and less?ideologue lawyers in government. I support the re-election of J. Paul Brown.

Roy D. Vega


Dear Editor:

Although Dave Blake probably didn’t realize it, his recent letter (Myth, reality) presents a compelling argument for?removing Barack Obama from office. ?

If, as Blake says, 93 percent of stimulus funds went to the wealthiest?1 percent of American families, there can be no clearer evidence of the incompetence of the Obama administration.

The top 1 percent didn’t steal that money, it was given to them by incompetents who thought they could invigorate our economy by borrowing money from China and throwing it into the wind. ?Clearly, we need a president who?understands how important our soaring national debt is, and has the will to do something about it.

Gene Wissler

Montgomery, Texas


Dear Editor:

Mr. Olson’s letter (SUN 10-25-12) requires correction. God’s truth and law are eternal and immutable, not subject to individual determination that they are outdated and that advocates are Neanderthals. Morality is objective, not subjective, and not under the false principle of situation ethics.

Agreeably, rape is a terrible crime, which has nothing to do with human sexuality. Rather, it is a violent act of control. Society has the responsibility and capability of assisting the victim of the rape, and there are many couples eager to adopt a child.

A lady told me that the child in her womb was not hers but God’s. Indeed, God said, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.” All life comes from God who creates the soul, the principle of life. This applies even to Mr. Olson.

God’s chosen 12 apostles reaffirmed this in their first century catechism (Didache 22: SCh. 248, 148): “You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.” An unborn child is not subject to a woman’s control of her body. The baby is not part of her body but a separate, individual human being whose removal is simply murder.

Some claim a constitutional right of choice (choice means choosing abortion). The constitution does not grant such a right. Contrarily, the constitution guarantees the creator-endowed right to life for all.

Most attorneys agreed that Roe v. Wade was bad law and should never have been passed. Even the principle advocate of the law recognized her error and became an outspoken proponent of the right to life movement. It is past time to expunge it.

Unfortunately, Mr. Olson is a victim of one of three of society’s erroneous philosophies, individualism (the others are hedonism and minimalism). The world-renowned author and lecturer, Mathew Kelly, explains it as “an all-consuming concern for oneself” that places himself even above God and determines when his truth and law become obsolete. Kelly continues, “The social and political reforms of our age have exalted the individual in a way that is unhealthy for society … all this has been done under the banner of false freedom. The false and adolescent notion is that freedom is the opportunity to do whatever you want, whenever you want, and wherever you want, without the interference of any person or party. This is not freedom. The fruits are greed, selfishness and exploitation. What would become of a facility or nation in which each member adopted individualism as his or her own personal philosophy?” There would exist chaos, confusion and anarchy.

I suggest that Mr. Olsen study the full-page spread by Billy Graham in the same edition of The SUN in which his letter appeared and join in prayer that “America will remain one nation under God.”

Eugene Witkowski

blog comments powered by Disqus