Letters to the editor: April 27 - East Valley Tribune: Opinion

Letters to the editor: April 27

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Sunday, April 27, 2008 4:21 am | Updated: 11:56 pm, Fri Oct 7, 2011.

We encourage readers to submit letters to the editor on issues of interest to East Valley residents. Submissions should be no longer than 300 words, factually accurate and original thoughts of the writer. Please be brief and include name, address, city and phone number for verification. Letters and call-in comments may be edited for clarity and length.

Submit your letter to the editor

We encourage readers to submit letters to the editor on issues of interest to East Valley residents. Submissions should be no longer than 300 words, factually accurate and original thoughts of the writer. Please be brief and include name, address, city and phone number for verification. Letters and call-in comments may be edited for clarity and length.

Submit your letter to the editor

9/11 memorial

Johnson spouts ‘loony’ theories

The 9/11 Memorial fiasco has become even more absurd after a recent Senate committee vote. A 5-5 tie means the memorial will have only minor changes and might even stay fenced. Among those voting against changes was Mesa’s own Sen. Karen Johnson. Her reasoning? “There’s many of us that believe there’s been a cover-up,” a cover-up about who was really behind the attacks and about what actually flew into the World Trade Center towers were pilotless drones and the passengers had been taken off beforehand (Tribune, April 17).

To call this “reasoning” is to be generous; more accurate would be the term “loony.”

More embarrassing than Johnson’s reasoning here is the fact that her Mesa constituents continually return her to office despite regular eruptions of thinking like this. I guess we should conclude that her constituents either are inattentive or actually supportive of her comments.

Mike McCellan


Janet Napolitano

One of best. Governors. Ever.

According to Rep. Warde Nichols (Opinion 2, April 16), Janet Napolitano is “a tax-and-spend governor” who “may be the worst governor Arizona has ever had.” Nichols continues his rant by claiming the Democrats in the state Legislature are “sycophants” and “willing accomplices” to Napolitano’s ineptitude. Even a high school student in Arizona’s poorly funded educational system should be able to see through Nichols’ tired and shallow rhetoric.

To less blatantly biased observers, Napolitano has actually been a terrific governor, one who has been willing to stand up for the children, teachers, firefighters, workers and other public servants of this state. I’m proud that we have a governor who understands and supports the business community yet who also respects and protects our fragile desert environment. Napolitano is a woman with fresh ideas, excellent negotiation skills, and a far-sighted vision. As governor, Napolitano has advanced social benefits such as all-day kindergarten, a prescription-drug card for seniors, and a pioneering education policy that focuses on developing real-life skills. Although Nichols claims she stymies the Legislature at every turn, Napolitano has cooperated frequently with Republicans, such as when she cut business property taxes and compromised on this year’s budget. She has been willing to work with the Republican legislators, but her cooperative attitude has not always cut both ways.

The truth is that the lack of vision of the Republican majority in the Legislature has been more instrumental in our current problems than Napolitano. Legislators such as Nichols, with their one-dimensional tunnel vision, believe the solution to every problem is to cut taxes and slash services. We see the results of this philosophy daily. In November 2005, Time magazine christened Janet Napolitano as one of our nation’s five best governors. She was a highly competent governor then and remains so today.

Mark Wenz


Presidential election

How Obama paid for Harvard

An April 17 letter asked who paid Sen. Barack Obama’s tuition.

First let me make clear that I do not speak for the candidate.

Second let me make clear that it was not a vast liberal conspiracy that paid to educate the senator or his wife.

Obama has let it be known that both he and his wife were able to pay off their student loans only after he had written a best-selling book. Yes, it was student loans that paid for his education. Thus, this “elitist candidate” did what so many of our best and brightest of young people are doing today: Putting themselves into staggering debt to satisfy their intellectual curiosity.

So here is a hint to all of you parents out there who are not raising their children to become hedge-fund managers but are instilling the values in their children to help others. Live a very unique life! Teach your children the value of hope, “that in a winner-take-all economy the effects can be dire.” Let them grow to realize “a future in the ever-growing pool of low-wage service work, with few benefits, the risk of financial ruin in the event of an illness, and the inability to save for retirement or a child’s education” is not the American dream. Then maybe your children, after completing their education, can write a best-selling book about you to pay off their student loans.

Robert Stelling


Credit crunch

Action prolonged Depression

Mark Schofield, in his call to “do something” about our current banking panic (“Averting economic disaster,” April 13), gets it wrong in every way: historically, economically and morally. If he believes that the Great Depression was caused by political inaction, then he needs to stop reading bankers’ self-serving accounts of that era, like Ben Bernanke’s, and consult Murray Rothbard’s “America’s Great Depression,” which shows that not only was its principal cause the extension of bank credit (sound familiar?) but that the prolongation of its misery for an unprecedented 12 years was the result of precisely the kind of government planning and intervention Schofield advocates.

When necessary liquidations had been allowed to proceed, previous banking panics (such as in 1920-21) were of only a few months duration. Instead, the depressionary effects of the October 1929 stock market crash were extended over several years by Herbert Hoover’s immediate market interventions beginning the next month (hardly “too little, too late”). Hoover’s actions included “bolstering of wage rates and prices, expansion of credit, propping up of weak firms, and increased government spending (e.g., subsidies to unemployment and public works),” only to increase unemployment and restrict the supply of goods. Franklin Roosevelt, having campaigned against Hoover’s policies, instead adopted and extended Hoover’s package when he took office in 1933, with the 25 percent unemployment rate of 1932 continuing through FDR’s entire first term and beyond.

And please, remember that true homeowners consist only of people who have no mortgage on their homes. Those paying mortgages effectively rent their homes from the true owners, their lenders (typically banks). So-called “Homeowner Relief Acts” that keep mortgage payments flowing and force taxpayers to subsidize politicians’ “compassion” are just bank bailout schemes because banks, unlike “homeowners,” cannot just walk away from their multitude of white-elephant McMansions gotten from reckless lending practices.

Richard D. Welling



ASU shuttle buses

KTAR’s rights violated

I’m confused after reading your editorial of April 16, “Open dialogue is the loser in KTAR-ASU bus fracas.” Is the point to encourage additional debate or simply paint this incident as a ratings stunt? Tagging KTAR’s response as “milking” the poor decision by the shuttle bus operator appears to be more a case of minimizing a clear freedom of press issue rather than standing up against the reactionary first actions of Coach America in targeting a specific station for a listening ban on Arizona State University’s shuttle buses.

One could only imagine the reaction had the Coach America management decreed the Tribune front pages questionable and banned riders from reading your newspaper should it provide offense to others within sight, much less the outrage one should rightfully expect from your readers and other members of the media. Isn’t the ongoing debate, and shifting policies forced by public reaction to this incident, precisely the open debate your editorial calls for?

Here in my hometown, two reporters for the Cleveland Plain Dealer were ordered to leave a public meeting or be forcibly removed by taxpayer-provided security for their reporting on a questionable political hire. Is the newspaper “milking” this case by placing it on the front page where it spurred considerable on-air debate from local radio, television stations and nationally-syndicated newsletters and outlets? I haven’t heard opinion expressed connecting local newspaper circulation to editorial decisions to follow leads in reporting this story, much less give it considerable play.

The policies of Coach America put KTAR-FM in the cross hairs this time, and spurred healthy debate on the state of the same First Amendment rights citizens as well as the media hold precious; will all media be supportive when others find themselves in the box?

Ed Esposito

Radio-television news directors association

  • Discuss


EastValleyTribune.com on Facebook


EastValleyTribune.com on Twitter


EastValleyTribune.com on Google+


Subscribe to EastValleyTribune.com via RSS

RSS Feeds

Your Az Jobs