Flawed definition of freedom defies logic
Once again, we are bombarded by freedom letter writer Lynn Muzzy. If you read all of Muzzy’s letters to the Appeal, Reno Gazette-Journal and Record-Courier, you would think Muzzy’s need for freedom comes out of North Korea.
If we are to list some of Muzzy’s freedom needs, it would encompass the following: you have the freedom to earn a lower wage; freedom to avoid government programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security; freedom to meet health needs and assistance at a local community church; freedom to avoid taxes; freedom from government interference concerning the safety and well-being of its citizens; freedom to set up a home gun arsenal with enough ammunition to fight off any government official that comes knocking at the door.
By Muzzy’s definition, if I am a self-anointed cardinal of gun control, I therefore become an enemy of freedom. By Muzzy’s definition, 75 percent of people in this country are now Muzzy’s enemies, including some gun owners.
And no, no, no, Samuel Colt does not make every man on this earth equal!
Congress must help those most in need
The way current benefits are constructed is backwards. The people who need it the most receive the least and those that need it the least get the most. Congress must impose means testing to provide a true safety net.
Congress is talking about “chaining” the cost of living adjustments in order to control future costs. How about making the “grocery basket” more realistic? Maybe select the lower one-third of benefit recipients and run a sample of percentage of income spent for housing, utilities, food, transportation and out-of-pocket medical expenses. Then make the COLA based on true inflation rate in these needed categories.
Several years ago we had a very low increase because high priced electronics dropped drastically in price. That’s totally irrelevant to the needs. How do we pay for this? Back in the dark ages, there was something called the Social Security Trust Fund. In order to partially fund annual deficits, Congress dipped into that fund. They did this by dropping an IOU in a lock box somewhere in West Virginia.
Congress, pay back the current retirees with accrued interest.
Education-process study costs ridiculous
Here we go again ... if you think it is broke, throw money at it! A recent editorial (or letter to the editor) tried to explain why the Nevada K-12 schools needed another study for pupils to be more efficient and responsive to the education process.
The estimated cost over the two-year time period between legislative sessions was $160,000,000 (that’s right, $160 million per year). That is $320 million for two years, or just at a quarter of a billion dollars. The same study, if needed, should be no more than $200,000. With all of the high-priced administrators and staff that we currently support should be able to ascertain what needs attention ... like reading, writing, math and discipline.
The bottom line is that the K-12 should be able to comprehend what they read and is said to them and communicate their opinions pro or con.
Appeal’s columnist lineup leans to right
I, for one, vote for a more balanced Nevada Appeal. Of the registered voters in Carson City, approximately 12,000 register Republican, 9,000 Democrat, 4,200 no party affiliation and another 2,000 split among other parties. These statistics paint a more diverse picture of our voters than one might think. Why then does our local newspaper lean so heavily on ultra-conservative columnists?
I regularly read Messrs. Farmer, Thomas, Muth and Ms. Bednarski. Reading their columns further solidifies my thinking that the Appeal needs to add writers who offer a different perspective. I have read everything from Mr. Farmer blaming the “lefties” for the policies with which he does not agree to; Ms. Bednarski’s statement that the president was the sole cause of sequestration; Mr. Muth’s idea of an appropriate 13th birthday gift for his daughter was to introduce her to the use of firearms for her future protection against rape, murder and the U.S. government.
These columnists have a right to express their opinions, and the Nevada Appeal has a right to print their views. I might suggest, however, the Appeal editorial team look at the op-ed section of the progressive New York Times that manages to print viewpoints of both conservative and liberal columnists. Seemingly an intelligent format. In keeping with the diversity of local residents, I believe readers of the Nevada Appeal would be well served if the paper reviewed its policy regarding political commentaries and consider a more balanced approach in its endeavor to enlighten and inform.
Martin J. Fischer