Letters to the Editor for Sept. 25
September 24, 2012
I’m writing in regards to the continuous accusations regarding Republicans having a so-called “war on women.”
Something to keep in mind: since Mr. Obama took office, there are 500,000 less women working. That’s a very sobering fact. Every time I turn on my TV, I see attack ads stating Mitt Romney will take women back to the “dark ages” and that his views on women’s’ health issues are “dangerous.” Really ladies, what I believe to be dangerous is Mr. Obama’s belief that it’s perfectly fine to have an abortion at any stage of pregnancy. Any stage, wow. I certainly hope Mr. Obama has many federal tax dollars going towards the mental health of the women who choose to endure late-term or gender-based abortions that he is passing as “OK.” Whatever happened to being pro-choice with personal boundaries?
It saddens me to think this is where this country is headed, and to me, that is dangerous, not Mitt Romney. The things that would make me feel empowered as a woman are simple: a thriving economy, lower gas prices, more affordable groceries and for we, as women, to be able to be once again be gainfully employed and be able to make our own health care choices and not be given a federally forced plan that we all do not agree on. I feel that we, as women, are so much better than all of this and the focus needs to be put back on the basics because that has been lost through a bad economy and confusing times. Search your hearts ladies and stop drinking the Obama Koolaid. Please, think about our country and America’s freedoms, not your personal needs.
In a recent letter discussing the funding for the “fanciful” freeway art, Susan Paslov asserted, “…the truth is the funding comes from a federal beautification grant…”
Paslov seems to believe that federal grants are somehow free money. No matter where the federal grant money comes from, it is never free, especially in a time when the federal government borrows $4 billion each and every day.
I would liken Paslov’s view to a husband coming home with a $10,000 “fanciful” flame paint job for his truck. He justifies the cost of the whimsical artwork claiming the $10,000 beautification paint job did not really cost the family anything. He did not pay for it from the already empty family checking account because he gave them an IOU.
He explains how all the guys standing in line next to him at the unemployment office thought it was a wonderful idea. How good he looked driving it around town.
The still-working wife faces the daunting task of figuring out how pay for the beautiful flame paint when she had trouble just paying for the groceries and the kids need new school shoes.
If folks like Paslov want to beautify freeway on ramps, let them take up a collection among themselves or hold a bake sale to pay for their whimsy.
Either way, they need to keep their hands out of money our grandchildren will have to pay interest on long after their fanciful art has rusted away.