I see where the Post Independent has a new online poll regarding what the opinion is that we should be giving a cut-rate tuition for illegals. As I see it, most everybody’s opinion is they are not in favor of it. The big news for President Obama is to tackle illegal immigration and put these illegals on a pathway to gaining citizenship. There is already a law set by the federal government for this. Unfortunately the laws are never enforced. So why would making more laws of the same nature be of any use? It’s just another way for Congress and the present government to spend more money. Obama can make all the laws he wants. It won’t make any difference what the American citizen wants. Obama is going to declare another blanket amnesty. It’s been done twice before and it doesn’t make any difference because we still have all those Latinos that were born here, saying that we voted for Obama and he promised to keep our families together. Now we aren’t talking a small family, we are talking 50 or more people in a family. The Latinos that were born here want every family member they have in Mexico to come to the U.S. Jane SpauldingCarbondale
There is a lot of fuzzy financial math floating around in Washington, D.C., these days. Last week, the House passed the first hurdle of raising the debt ceiling on to the Senate for passage this week. The debt ceiling, like the fiscal cliff drama, can be difficult for American citizens to follow. The debt ceiling is a request by the Obama administration to have the U.S. Treasury print more money so the federal government can pay the bills that the government owes, such as Social Security checks and military paychecks and whatever else is on the list. If the temporary debt ceiling bill eventually gets passed, it is only good until March 27, when the government is scheduled for its next default. Then, after that, other default hurdles are lined up for this summer and probably beyond. The Social Security Trust Fund is supposed to have actual cash assets on hand. Apparently, the government does not have the cash on hand to write senior citizens their Social Security checks. It’s gone. Remember August of 2011? President Obama needed specifically an extra $20 billion to write the Social Security checks and the military paychecks at that time. Our government has borrowed the surplus and probably all of the cash from the Social Security Trust Fund by now and can’t pay it back. Apparently, the non-marketable securities (the government’s IOU’s) are worthless. That is why Congress and the president are in panic mode to pass the debt ceiling so they can continue to cover up their greedy spending binges, like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is why the debt ceiling is a hoax. No other modern industrialized country has a debt ceiling. Why? Because their governments did not spend their citizens’ Social Security pension funds on endless wars and on bloated government agency budgets. Our federal government does not use QuickBooks. It uses the cooking-the-books accounting system.It is time for a national audit of our federal government, starting with the Social Security Trust Fund. Randy FrickeNew Castle
Not that I like to complain much, but when in the course of human events and the writing of letters to the editor gross injustice occurs, I must protest. Under the guise of good taste and civility, the Post Independent’s letters to the editor have been turned into a page of vanilla mush. The Post Independent doesn’t print personal criticisms and God forbid they should print any derogatory comments about some of their lame columnists. Anything contrary to their progressive, liberal views gets extra scrutiny and lots of editing, if it gets printed at all. So in answer to my friends’ questions about why I’m not writing more, I still am. The civility police just chooses not to publish them. Bruno KirchenwitzRifle
A Jan. 22 Post Independent article, “Garfield County wants more analysis of BLM oil & gas plan,” is empirical confirmation of why it is crucial that Commissioners John Martin, Mike Samson and Tom Jankovsky invest significant amounts of county money towards diversifying away from Garfield County’s economic dependence upon oil and gas extraction.In this article, Garfield County Oil and Gas Liaison Kirby Wynn states, “Oil and gas extraction activity has fallen off significantly over the past four years, and will likely continue to fluctuate in the future.” Wynn describes the boom and bust nature of the Colorado oil and gas extraction industry as “episodic” and adds, “Industry employment and associated population increases/decreases are known to fluctuate broadly and cyclically rather than follow a straight line growth trajectory.”Amendment 64 provides a vehicle for the diversification of our local economy away from dependence upon oil and gas and into a value-added agriculture economy with locally grown hemp as the crop and the value-added components hemp offers for sustainable Garfield County jobs.Accordingly, Commissioners Martin, Samson and Jankovsky have the statutory authority under CRS 30-24-101 to create a “County Agriculture Research Fund” to provide county money for agricultural research work with local farmers, laboratory facilities, management and labor to scientifically investigate test plantings of hemp. Therefore, I strongly suggest that County Manager Andrew Gorgey be directed by the BOCC to consult with the board of directors of the Silt Water Conservancy District to act as the lead agency in the development of hemp test plantings, this spring, using county money as allowed under state law.I also strongly suggest that the county commissioners invest $250,000 (tentatively earmarked for the annual county “air circus”) into investigations of value-added technologies from hemp (as the raw material) and local “livable wage jobs creation” as the technology platform. This suggestion requires intense socio-economic development sophistication, (which county staff does not possess) and is best accomplished in collaboration with local governments acting as the lead agency and county money underwriting the investigations.Carl Mc WilliamsSilt
This letter is in response to Stan Rachesky’s latest tirade of Jan. 22. Mr. Rachesky invited readers to respond as to “why did voters re-elect Obama?”Actually, since it seems difficult for him to grasp the thinking of those individuals who re-elected our current president, why would anyone want to get into the political arena and argue with him? I am not using my energy to prove that which could not be changed these past four years and complain about what may be. I trust in our government and I have hope. I did not want the change that would have come with Mitt Romney. Simple. Perhaps Mr. Rachesky is right with all the facts and all the stats that he has researched and shared. I guess, one can say he is informative and has thought his way into being discontent, and now has chosen to think this way another four years. Is he seeking company in his displeasure? Did he know that unkindness comes from certainty?Now what I share may even stretch his understanding just a little bit more. It is letting what is, just “be.” I quote, “It is neither good nor bad, but thinking makes it so.” – MontaigneI ask, will Mr. Rachesky be complaining another four years? It seems futile to lower the bars on our batteries with negative thinking, when we could think positively with a sense of acceptance and go on. There is no need for me to read any more of his factual findings. Annig Agemian RaleyGlenwood Springs
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.