Letters to the editor - East Valley Tribune: Opinion

Letters to the editor

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:43 am | Updated: 5:35 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


Money well spent

As a grandparent of two, I was pleased to hear that my representative, Harry Mitchell, voted to extend and expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. I am also pleased to hear that Mitchell will continue to represent Arizona’s children when the House of Representatives attempts to overturn President Bush’s veto of SCHIP today.

SCHIP is a vital program that provides immunizations and checkups early in life. This program provides care to 10 million children whose families cannot afford health insurance. According to published reports, that includes about 65,000 kids here in Arizona. How anyone could deny kids health care is beyond me, particularly when we spend so much money all around the world. It seems like whenever budgets get cut, it is either seniors or children who suffer.

People my age know it is penny-wise and pound-foolish to cut corners with your health. Kids need to be able to go to the doctor and have access to health care. Mitchell deserves a big thanks for standing up for what families here in Arizona need. We’ll be visiting his Scottsdale office with our grandkids to deliver a thank-you in person.




Time to recall him

A letter to the editor by Robert Stelling, a veteran, headlined “The True Enemy” published in the Oct. 2 Tribune has brought me to conclude that there must be others that feel as Stelling does about the state of our country under the rule of George W. Bush.

Before we get too far into areas in which President Bush has attacked the Constitution, let us establish the fact that Article I, Section 3, gives sole power of impeachment to the U.S. House. It follows then that in the event the House fails to act when the Constitution has been attacked our lawmakers, individually, have failed to defend the Constitution and have failed to fulfill their oath of office.

Stelling made a strong statement about Bush’s idea that legislation that he signed into law does not apply to him because of his status as the commander in chief. Bush has implied that his status allows him to overlook that part of his oath of office that reads “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States …”

I might add here that the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has violated her oath of office when she says that impeachment action is off the table. However, Article X of the Constitution reads as follows: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states respectively are reserved to the people.” This part of the Constitution should give the people power to remove a president from office through the recall process. I will sign a petition for a recall of President George W. Bush! How about you?



Tribunal stance not acceptable

With reference to Austin Hill’s column, “President picked the wrong side in this fight” (Opinion 2, Oct. 11): I have stuck with President Bush through thick and thin. Voted for him twice. I however, cannot support a president who openly defies U.S. law by even suggesting that the International Court of Justice, a foreign tribunal, has any jurisdiction in the United States and each of the states of the union. (Reference to the current Supreme Court hearings: Medellin v. Texas). To allow a foreign tribunal jurisdiction in the U.S. over and above U.S. law is an extremely dangerous precedent and borders on treason. I am saddened to now support the impeachment of Bush regardless of the outcome of the current hearings.




Not the government’s business

Every year I pay big bucks in federal taxes. The feds passed the immigration laws so let them spend the federal income tax they took from me to pay for enforcing their federal laws. If the state of Arizona is going to tax me, it should spend those tax dollars enforcing Arizona laws, not federal laws.

That’s not to say I agree with these immigration laws. I don’t think the government has any business deciding who should be allowed to work for whom. If person A wants to work for person B, that should be totally between person A and person B. The government has no business sticking its nose into the transaction and saying if person B is a Mexican they can’t work for person A. The same goes for immigration. If your Aunt Tilda who lives in Russia, Mexico, India or wherever wants to come visit you in Phoenix, that should be between you and Aunt Tilda. The government doesn’t have any business sticking its nose into the deal and telling you that Aunt Tilda can’t visit you because she is from some country a bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., doesn’t like.



Judge for yourself

Regarding immigration, consider what has occurred recently:

• Federal Judge Charles Breyer blocked ID checking requirements for businesses.

• Federal Judge Ellen Huvelle blocked further work on the border fences.

• Chamber of Commerce CEO Thomas Donohue pushes for increasing immigration.

What do these individuals have in common? All are liberals. All were appointed, or assumed power, during the Clinton administration, and we may be heading for more of the same. Leaders of several union and business groups are cheering these decisions, which allow them to recruit cheap labor and increase union membership.

Most illegals are just looking for a better life. Let’s make it easier to obtain work visas (after criminal checking), require employers to verify visas, pay at least minimum wage (with taxes withheld), and prohibit union membership by visa holders.




Funding is needed

Like so many, I don’t want to vote for the Scottsdale schools budget override. However, one needs to understand that its passage is very necessary because there is no other source of funding for much of what is funded by this override. Increases in our taxes and other cost of living items aside, I will vote for this override even though it is financially painful. Please do likewise for the future of our fair city’s youngsters.



Simply necessary

It’s pretty simple; just take a walk through many of Scottsdale’s existing schools and it becomes very clear the dire need to renew the existing capital override and approve the maintenance and operations override. Scottsdale students and teachers have thrived despite the conditions they teach and learn in. It’s time to support our educational system and pass both of these overrides.



  • Discuss


EastValleyTribune.com on Facebook


EastValleyTribune.com on Twitter


EastValleyTribune.com on Google+


Subscribe to EastValleyTribune.com via RSS

RSS Feeds

Your Az Jobs