Posted by
Playful Walrus on Monday, March 14, 2011 5:35:18 PM
Today's
Los Angeles Times has some letters from readers that are ripe for consideration. Joseph Bonino of Glendale says of the federal budget:
I have the answer: The Democrats should agree to the Republicans' cuts on the condition that they also agree to cut an additional $60 billion from welfare for military contractors, foreign military bases that do nothing for our national security and yet another "more stealthy" strategic bomber that has no purpose in today's world.
Both parties' major constituencies would take the same hit. Fair is fair.
"Welfare for military contractors." Hmmm. I'm not in favor of corporate welfare. However, paying contractors for their work is… paying someone for
doing something. Leftist welfare is paying people for not doing anything.
I won't argue about any given military base, as I don’t know enough about all of them. But we do need some military bases.
Are bombers obsolete? I guess they would be if we'd just go ahead and nuke all of the trouble areas. Go and read through history and you'll find that after World War I (not numbered as "I" back then), people had that mentality, too. Then WWII happened.
But the last paragraph pretends that there is always equivalence between the parties. This is not so. It is like saying, "Well, that GOP guy refunded his campaign contribution from the corporate exec convicting of crimes, so the Democrat opponent should refund the contribution he got from that trial lawyer." I do think Republicans sometimes support spending they shouldn't. But it isn't necessarily fair to ask each side to cut "their" causes. National defense is assigned to the federal government by the Constitution.
Arch Miller of Arcadia wrote:
I read with shock that 1,210 people own 2.3% of the world's wealth.
What's so shocking about that?
Only one thousand, two hundred and ten people own four and a half trillion dollars. I intentionally spelled out the numbers to let them sink in while reading.
Yes, about 3.75 billion dollars per person, or per family as the case may be.
True, many of these people are not Americans; however, this country has serious income inequality issues when the net wealth of a few billionaires can increase by $10 billion in one year while Republicans fight to keep taxes low for these ultra-rich people.
You're talking about two different things. One is about someone generating more wealth through voluntary interactions. The other is taking one person's money by force to give to other people. Please explain how any of the American billionaires misappropriated funds.
Wisconsin Republicans are crushing unions, which provided a middle-class lifestyle for millions of Americans.
They aren't crushing unions. They simply limited some collective bargaining powers of some public employee unions. These unions don't provide a middle-class lifestyle. Taxpayers have been providing that.
The rich get richer because the rich keep doing the things that made them rich. You can do these things, too.
And, finally, Kay Bandell of Norwalk praises Illinois for letting murderers escape justice via banning the death penalty:
California can and must do the same. Illinois' death penalty system was expensive and flawed.
I love it when the Left does everything they can to make the death penalty expensive, and then they complain about the expense. Name for any aspect of law enforcement or criminal justice in California that can’t be portrayed as "expensive and flawed". Shall we let all of the rapists out of prison?
How about we go old school, then, and allow family members of victims to execute the convicted murderer using their own means, after one appeal. Would that be better?
Why don't these people just come out and admit that they don't care if someone rapes, tortures, and murders a thousand children; they don't want these people executed, even if it happens through essentially putting them gently to sleep?