Entitlement not restricted to poor
I delivered Meals on Wheels last week, which gave me a chance to reflect about Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” as I met them one by one.
The largest number of them, of course, are the elderly, whose houses are neat and tidy but who are in declining health and perhaps have had other misfortunes that prevent them from being more self-sufficient. Perhaps there are those who would say they should be less reliant on Social Security and Medicare – that the inadequacy of their funds is due to their lack of foresight in planning for the future and, therefore, should not be our problem.
There are others who show less evidence of having the habits of orderliness and diligence. Having been born in the 1930s, I am well aware how my parents resisted going on the public dole because of how disgraceful it seemed to them. So there may well be an increase in the sense of entitlement to being taken care of, even by the government if necessary.
But entitlement is not restricted to the poor who get public handouts. The person who has wealth vastly underestimates the extent to which his fortune is the product of birth, of the work of others who did not receive their fair share of the reward, and just plain luck. Entitlement is what we see in those who rationalize that they have discharged their responsibility to society simply by buying goods and services from those who are less well-off than they.
Russell Arben Fox indirectly attacked those of us who love and respect our Constitution (“Effective government requires ‘moderation,’” Sept. 7 Opinion). He implied that it is improper to be enamored of “a unified ideological agenda,” such as that fostered by the majority of our founding leaders and citizens in the Constitution. He implied that it is wrong to be concerned about an ideological struggle against liberalism, meaning that it is wrong to oppose liberal dismantling of our Constitution and system of law.
He claimed that ideological uniformity does not match the structure of our government system. That is true today, because the liberal system of government that now exists does not match “government of the people, by the people and for the people,” as our real Constitution does.
Gary Lawson, a professor of law at Boston University, wrote in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy in 2010: “The modern administrative state (fostered by liberal Democrats) is not merely unconstitutional; it is anti-constitutional.” Its representatives in all branches of the government – executive, legislative and judicial – are often anti-constitutional. Their main anti-constitutional weapon is the usurpation of powers forbidden them by the Constitution.
George Washington declared in his farewell address: “Let there be no change (to the Constitution or laws) by usurpation; for ... it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”
Any time the U.S. Supreme Court or president assumes the power to make law, they have usurped a power granted only to Congress. This form of usurpation has been practiced by liberals since 1803.
GOP to blame
Kudos to the writer of “GOP obstruction” (Sept. 21 Letters to the Editor). He summed up my thoughts on this topic perfectly, and I will forward his letter to anyone who constantly tells me that the Republicans are not to blame in any way, shape or form for our current economic state.
Draw is low taxes
Burdett Loomis wants us to believe that a profit-making company would prefer to pay more in taxes than to be in a state where leadership has some concerns about fraudulent birth certificates, hidden passport records, concealed school records and clean elections (“State not looking very attractive,” Sept. 23 Opinion). Is that why Boeing decided to move to Texas?
For Loomis, the ideal place for business apparently would be California, which has high taxes, good schools, lively cities, safe suburbs and thriving arts. But why did 204 companies move from California in 2010, many of them relocating to Texas?
Why did 1,280 companies from around the country move to Texas in 2010, according to Dun and Bradstreet? Could it be lower taxes, or just the big hats?
The “creative” things that economist Richard Florida claims draw companies are actually things that follow when companies are attracted to a state in the first place by lower taxes.
Shame on knitters
Shame on all the knitters and crocheters who contributed their time and yarn to make the ridiculous dressings for the sculptures on the Wichita State University campus (Sept. 19 Local & State). If they have so much time and yarn to spare, they should try going to the Robert J. Dole VA Medical Center and meeting some of our wounded warriors who would appreciate having a knitted stocking to cover the stub of a missing arm or leg, or to cover scars on their head from shrapnel or burning, or perhaps a red, white and blue shoulder or lap cover to use as they push themselves around in their wheelchairs. Take some of all that spare time and yarn and make something worthwhile.