Letters to the editor (05/30/13)
Mismanagement didn’t help
Thank you U.S. House of Rep. Steve Pearce (R- N.M). I always appreciate my representative talking about how the free market capital economy is so much better than a government run business.
However, in the 2006 lame duck session of Congress after you’ve been voted out, you and your fellow Republicans voted to micromanage our U.S. Postal Service.
Let’s see you boys voted to require the U.S. Postal Service to set aside $60 billion to cover health and retirement benefits for its employees to be paid in 10 years or about $6 billion annually into the fund. That’s basically enough retirement and health care funding to cover U.S. Postal workers, for the next 75 years, i.e. it will pay for employment benefits for postal employees that have yet to be born.
I’d like you, Rep. Pearce, to name just one privately run U.S. corporation that has set aside employee retirement/health benefits to pay for even the next 50 years. And then your further micromanagement won’t let the U.S. Postal Service raise it’s price of stamps, etc., to cover the congressional mandated increased retirement/health care costs.
Since the U.S. Postal Service is the only business outlined in our Constitution and since the service does not receive one thin dime from the taxpayers, it fails me, the reason that you voted against your stated core values to ascertain that its your job, not the CEO who is supposedly in change of the post office, to run it.
The result of your mismanagement is that your constituents, that be me, will lose our Saturday mail delivery in August and the U.S. Post Office will lay off 23,000 good paying postal workers, a great many of whom are our veterans.
My advice, not that you will listen, is to tell your Republican collegues in the Senate to quite filibustering the bills that will remove the noose around the postal workers neck, i.e., there is already $40 billion in their retirement health care fund, which is more than adequate to meet future needs and let the U.S. Post Office run as a business with possible common sense steps like copy machines, selling fishing licenses, and selling money orders.
I think the postal service can figure it out without your help, especially, since the post office made a profit of $9 billion between 2003-06, before the Republicans decided to lend a helping hand.
Oh yeah, if I lose my Saturday delivery come August 2013, I can guarantee a letter on this subject, say around the first part of October 2014. Thanks for taking my comments into consideration.
Ward B. McCartney III
Zero tolerance is way to go
The article in your sister publication, the Albuquerque Journal on Tuesday March 19, about potential development in the Mancos Shale formation in northwest New Mexico mentioned production and technology and resource recovery and exploitation. The word pollution was not mentioned once.
Bureaucrats in America exercise zero tolerance policies against children wielding sandwiches shaped like a handgun, but the gross polluters of the oil and gas monopoly have a free hand in making record profits from chemical contamination of aquifers and streams and beaches across America, such as that resulting from hydraulic fracking, rusty oil pipelines, mountaintop mining, and other anti-environment practices.
The only sane policy for a non-toxic future in New Mexico is zero tolerance of any type of pollution, and cleanup of the parts of New Mexico already contaminated. New Mexico’s natural resources should not be opened to exploitation until the state devises strict pollution regulations with strict enforcement mechanisms, and penalties that make polluters very, very careful.
New Mexico bureaucrats tolerate all kinds of pollution, which will last forever. And Pete Domenici licks the boots of the polluters and their money-wielding lobbyists — how much was he paid for his speech? And Steve Pearce happily carries on that boot-licking tradition.
The choice is not between jobs and profits versus no jobs. The choice in New Mexico is between pollution-free industry and corporations that wantonly pollute.
Gay marriage is not right
Lately, we have been overwhelmed with the gay marriage issue because of the Supreme Court’s involvement.
As a Democrat-Socialist who takes lift-wing positions on most issues, I definitely part company with my liberal brethren when it comes to gay marriage and gay adoption of children. I have a stepson who is openly gay. I do not judge individual gay rights for their choice of partners, and being a union man, I would defend their basic rights.
I am not only a Democrat-Socialist, I am also an active Christian. Throughout my life, I have followed the teachings of the Bible when it comes to homosexuality. I cite Romans 1:26-27; Matthew 10:4-5; Leviticus 20:13.
Being a follower of history, every great civilization has fallen when it embraced homosexuality from Rome to Germany. Marriage is a sacred compact between a man and a woman. This is the way that God intended, especially when it comes to children. If we are honest with ourselves, the welfare of the child will be in jeopardy if raised by two men or two women in a marital relationship.
It is bad enough that the secular world is cozying up to gay marriage, now several mainstream Protestant churches are ignoring the passages in the Bible and giving gay marriage a pass.
We now live in a society that ignores the golden rule and moral values. “Anything goes.”
I am 65 years old with health issues. I am glad I won’t be around too much longer. I am willing to bet that before we know it, sodomy will be a respected behavior.
I would also like to remind my pro-gay friends that homosexuality is not race, creed or color, but a behavior.