Skip to content

Letters to the WCP Editor – 8.02.11

Letters to the WCP Editor – 8.02.11

Posted: Wednesday, August 3, 2011 8:01 pm

To the Editor,
Dear Representative Holt,
Let me begin by saying I’m not a devotee of Craig Fitzhugh. I disagree with plenty of his political actions.
Here’s the thing: some of us don’t like the stereotypical-Democratic method of fixing the economy or social ills. Some of us prefer smaller, local government to handle the necessary issues.
We like to do what we want in our own homes, make decisions like responsible adults and accept the differences of others as we expect them to accept us. The problem is that you’re saying that you do one thing and are in fact doing another. I’m leaving my personal opinions on these issues out and just addressing the contradiction:
1. The “Don’t Say Gay” law. I’m not saying it’s good or bad. It is, however, an increase in government’s reach, telling teachers what they cannot say in the classroom, regardless of the experiences “on the ground,” as it were.
2. The abortion bill. I’m not saying it’s good or bad. It is, however, government putting up another layer between an individual and her ability to exercise her will, or, if you prefer, telling a doctor what to do above and beyond what is medically necessary.
3. The ID for voters bill. I’m not saying it’s good or bad. It is, however, government creating a regulation, another expansion of itself.
I won’t say which are which, but I actually like some of these pieces of legislation and don’t like others. I’m not panning all of your choices. The problem is that you ran on a platform of smaller government, continue to proclaim small government and yet you support legislation that makes government bigger and more involved in our lives.
That, in and of itself, may or may not be a problem. Democrats try to champion the poor. Republicans try to champion the unborn. Both sides are willing to expand the role of the government if it will achieve their ends.
All we want to hear from you is that you’re generally for smaller government, but you make exceptions when you believe there is a moral imperative for you to make government stronger or bigger or more intrusive.
I won’t tell you not to stand behind your convictions, just as I’d expect you to respect mine. We can debate the individual bills some other time, but please get your terminology straight.
Your goal is not smaller government. It’s a government that gets out of the way economically and enlarges its influence on social issues. There is a difference.
Jeff Stumpo
Martin

To the Editor,
I was much amused to read in The Press (7.26.11) a long list of items for taxation in a letter and Sen. Lamar Alexander’s parroting Tea Party/Republican line of spending cuts. When will Republicans take responsibility of creating an incurable economic mess without a major surgery?
People may not know that it was Nixon who, around 1972, freed the dollar from gold security and laid the foundation tokeep on borrowing, which has now surpassed $14 trillion and rising.
Then came “Reagonomics” of tax cuts, which Sr. Bush called “Voodoo Economics” until he became a running mate, paying bills by credit cards.
We have to pay our credit card debts, but not Uncle Sam. Then came Jr. Bush  (whose wisdom is questionable) who ran the needed Afghanistan war on borrowed money and then waged the Iraqi war with more borrowing. No government in the world can run without taxes.
Where will the spending cuts be – courts, FBI, pentagon, Congress and its staff, the President and White House staff, prisons, the borders and coastal guards, FAA, control towers, etc.? You name it. Of course none of them will be cut.
Then the only places left to cut are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid which have all been eye sores of the Tea Party/Republicans.
But that cannot wipe out national debt and balance a budget without raising taxes, which Tea Party/Republicans adamantly refuse to agree to. No doubt there is fraud in Social Security, like crazy checks and  disability, Medicare and Medicaid providers milking with unnecessary claims and people enrolling in Medicare who are not eligible. No sane person can question the elimination of such frauds.
But what about the Pentagon, where toilet seats and screws  are bought at huge costs, not to mention all those very expensive armaments?
 As laymen, the only way we can get out of the mess is to put national debt on a mortgage basis with monthly payments managed by The Fed and live within our means from now on, which means earning in taxes enough to pay the bills
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dr. M.K. Jain
Martin

To the Editor,
It is unprecedented for The Weakley County Press to publish a political column for an elected state representative who doesn’t serve Weakley County or any county close. I am referring to the new column, “Craig’s Corner.”
Craig Fitzhugh is the state representative for Lauderdale County. The first of this “first” column that I read was a personal attack on Weakley County state representative Andy Holt and the new Republican majority.
The Weakley County Press is showing its bias by printing the column for Fitzhugh. Fitzhugh is the Democrat minority leader in the Tennessee State House. Since Democrat Mark Maddox was soundly defeated, District 76 is now represented by Republican Andy Holt. The voters spoke with a loud voice at the ballot box.
During Ned McWherter’s tenure as speaker of the Tennessee House or as governor, I’m sure the Weakley County Press would not have afforded the Republican minority leaders the same courtesy to print their opinions that were critical of McWherter, as they have done by printing Fitzhugh’s criticisms of Andy Holt and the Republican agenda.
The Weakley County Press seems to be taking sides against the duly elected representative for Weakley County. It is one thing to print a critical opinion from a local subscriber and resident in Weakley County. But it is unprecedented to allow a representative from another district who does not serve Weakley County free ink to attack the local state representative Andy Holt or his agenda in a local newspaper.
Mike Daniel
Union City

WCP 8.02.11

None

Leave a Comment