fb pixel

Log In


Reset Password

Letters to the Editor, March 19

Choose wisely

In regard to our ideological divide and the use of taxes, I interpret the phrase “common defense and general welfare” mentioned both in the Preamble and Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to mean our taxes may be used for activities that offer social benefits including economic, health and educational programs and infrastructural improvements or any other project beneficial to society. Conservatives focus on “common defense” and tend vilify the part related to the “general welfare.”

The priority between defense and welfare should be determined by the will of the people as manifested in our elections, particularly the presidency.

We have 27 amendments to the Constitution. Obviously we add or clarify the original Constitution over time. The Founders’ goal in writing the Constitution was to “form a more perfect union, establish justice …” Our current political unrest indicates that we need to examine how we are not “perfect” and we must find where our “justice” is lacking.

We would be wise to select a president whose primary goal is to “ensure domestic tranquility,” as was the Constitution’s aim, and not further divide us.

Annie Drager

Phoenix

Voting with our hearts

With regard to Joan White's letter of March 10, and others that have recently appeared in the Letters to the Editor section: I, and my friends, still remember what it was like when abortion was illegal, and women had to literally take their lives into their hands when faced with an unwanted pregnancy and the possibility of unsafe procedures. We will be voting with our hearts, as well, in the upcoming election.

Gregory Avery

Medford

A pathetic response

One of the definitions of the word "pathetic": miserably or contemptably inadequate. An example of this usage: The Senate Republican response to the vacancy on the Supreme Court is pathetic.

Eric Dziura

Medford

A 'useful idiot'

The exchange of letters both for and against Leonard Pitts, a frequent contributor to the MT editorial page, has been interesting. Mr. Pitts is undeniably far left in his political views. but rather than call for him to be banned from publication in the MT, I see his writing as consistently supporting the conclusions drawn by a noted psychiatrist, Lyle Rossiter, Jr, M.D., in his book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness."

Among his well-thought-out conclusions, Dr. Rossiter notes that "when the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."

In simple terms, Dr. Rossiter labels liberalism as a mental disease which ought to be labeled and treated as such. Until this occurs, Leonard Pitts serves as a "useful idiot," his rants routinely serving to emphasize Dr. Rossiter's conclusion and the dire need for official recognition of the mental disorder of liberalism. This mental disorder explains the delusional support by liberals of Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton, both compulsive liars.

Dr. Gaither B. Everett

Medford

The other side

I think I understand where Lynn Barton is coming from in her letter of March 10. I do, however, wonder if she has thought about the other side of the issue from a rape victim's point of view.

Pregnancies can be stressful even under the best of circumstances. I can only imagine the stress of a pregnancy that resulted from rape. I'm sure the crisis pregnancy centers across this country do an excellent service for those who seek their guidance, but that has to be a decision made by a woman.

I admire any woman who can continue with a pregnancy that is a result of the crime of rape. I also sympathize with any woman who cannot, and admire the courage it takes to make a very personal and most likely traumatic decision. Both these women have the right to make the decision that is right for them. We must never forget that.

Mary Lewis

Medford

Vote for prosperity

Why are most of the successful states progressive while our conservative states are poor? Why has our economy fared better under Democratic administrations?

A progressively supported middle class drives an economy. This has been proven repeatedly throughout history (within reason) all around the world.

Giving tax breaks to rich people and multinational corporations does nothing to encourage investment. Corporations don't invest unless there is demand. We use to give tax breaks to companies to build factories — now we give them the tax cut up front and they have no incentive to invest long-term.

Also, paying down the national debt is a dumb idea; to make a dent you would have to make large cuts in spending while keeping taxes high — a proven economy-killer. Today, smart governments spend wisely to fill the gap when needed to change trajectory.

Investing in green energy, education, housing, research while reducing medical costs will grow our economy and generate the tax receipts needed to pay down the debt. Also, GDP growth makes the debt less significant. Military spending is low bang for the buck economically, by the way.

No one accused our parents of being socialists under the New Deal, why should we suffer now?

Keith Shirley

Medford

Letters to the Editor, March 19