LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
In a recent "Cheers and jeers" editorial there were three cheers and one jeer. The jeer was so clear it was loudest to hear.
It said that Rep. Sal Esquivel will be "introducing legislation in the 2011 session" similar to Arizona's law and now is not the "time for Oregon to join that fight," which of course is borders, culture and language.
Bully for Esquivel. We need principled policy people in Salem to overcome the drowning flood tide of silliness passing for deliberative legislation. Arizona's law is nothing more or less than a fight against illegal immigration and sustaining a sovereign state's borders like the federal law.
At this time the assault on Arizona's security rests with law enforcement. The federal government has a responsibility to control the issue of immigration legal or illegal and has been inept. Arizona is in grave danger of severely damaging its culture, laws and boundaries.
Before 1914 immigration was easy, smooth and the envy of the world. The main difference today is the FDR welfare state, which has destroyed initiative and should not be afforded to amnesty illegals.
"Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses," that legally "breathe free." God bless America. — Joel Marks, Medford
Lest anyone mistake Sal Esquivel's surname for support of our valuable Hispanic community, one need only read the MT's editorial July 31 to understand his conservative position. Did Oregon taxpayers' dollars fund Esquivel's trip to Arizona to speak at a rally supporting Arizona's controversial immigration law? Did he present himself as a representative of the state of Oregon? Of Jackson County?
Say no to Sal Esquivel's poor judgment by voting for Lynn Howe for state representative. — Carol Jo Pettit, Phoenix
The MT again demonstrates that it doesn't have a clue regarding an issue. The MT criticizes Sal Esquivel for supporting the Arizona immigration law, yet has been derelict in offering a viable solution of its own.
A year ago, I took a bold stand and stated that illegal aliens of any ethnicity shouldn't receive any government benefits or services. For that, I was recklessly labeled a "racist" by the MT. The MT is obviously ignorant to the fact that illegal aliens come in all ethnicities. The MT cowardly chose to smear the messenger because they couldn't debate the message.
The MT dismisses the Arizona solution for Oregon because Oregon isn't a "border state." Geography shouldn't matter. Oregon faces similar issues with illegal aliens that Arizona does. Lawbreakers are lawbreakers regardless of the state they reside in.
The MT also uses the current budget crisis to dismiss the Arizona plan. If the MT possessed any financial knowledge, it would recognize that illegal aliens cost Oregon taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually in stolen government services, and that if the illegal alien issue were solved, then Oregon wouldn't face the same budget crisis it does today. — Curt Ankerberg, Medford
Using Ben Franklin's homilies regarding personal wealth (Comentary, July 31) as a defense of the excess of modern corporate wealth is deliberate obfuscation at worst, disingenuous at best.
Wealth is power, especially as applied in concert among corporate entities bent on shaping government and the flow of capital to their will. It is unlikely that Franklin would have applied his common-sense view of this or that profligacy among colonial familial wealth to explain the economic stresses in the modern industrial state. The comparison is as false as would be a claim for the equivalency of phrenology and antibiotics.
The rational limitation of excessively collusive industrial and commercial wealth in framing public policy and its enabling legislation is fundamental to the perpetuation of a free society. However, the cabals of financial intrigue are currently winning the battle for governmental favoritism, worldwide. Jus' folks are growing confused and disoriented, given to evermore simplistic thinking and tea party shouting and arm-waving.
Law professors should stick to the law as the historic mediator between competing social interests and avoid such blatant class favoritism in favor of more critical thought — an increasingly rare commodity among right-wing "thinkers." — Gary R. Collins, Jacksonville
Congress has finally passed an extension of unemployment benefits for long-term unemployed workers. This in spite of prominent members of the Republican Party, including Rep. Greg Walden, who have seemingly declared an all-out war on unemployed workers, now close to 10 percent of the U.S. population and over 12 percent in Southern Oregon. They have repeatedly delayed and halted extensions of unemployment benefits for nearly 3 million people.
As a working mother and student, I work hard for my family. But congressional Republicans are not in good faith with me or with the millions of American workers who have invested in our economy only to be abandoned when things go downhill.
Republicans justify their war on the unemployed with a reluctance to add to the deficit, except when it comes to tax cuts for the wealthy. Unrelenting opponents of the unemployed, they are concurrently pushing for an extension of Bush tax cuts, which amount to $678 billion over 10 years and are set to expire Dec.. 31.
Haven't we had enough? If Congress won't do it, let's stand and fight for American families. We can start with not re-electing Republicans who voted against us, American workers and our families. — Michelle Glass, Ashland
John McCain and Tom Coburn just released a list of "100 stimulus projects that give taxpayers the blues," a report about unnecessary stimulus projects. Can someone please make a list now of all the unnecessary defense spending that goes on in this country?
Nevertheless, the report they released channels a new-found concern about the deficit among Senate conservatives. So what is their proposal? Well, nothing. Paul Ryan's "roadmap" claims to end the deficit by 2080, but independent estimates say his proposal, if implemented, would leave our nation with a Greece-defying debt level of 170 percent of GDP.
Although it seems the opposite, the stimulus was not to put to waste; it's just that it wasn't big enough. The recession of 2008 left a $2.1 trillion demand hole that was filled with $600 billion in aid. A bigger stimulus would have increased the national debt but unemployment would be lower, GDP would be higher as well as state and local budgets, and citizens would be well on their way to paying more taxes. Deficits (read: direct state and local aid) are necessary during economic recessions because the public sector needs to recover before the economy recovers. — Jeremy Akins, Phoenix