What will cause Kansans to leave
I also am a fifth-generation Kansan and a registered Republican, so I empathize with the letter writer who said he’s not leaving in response to Secretary of State Kris Kobach’s comment that Kansans who don’t like what is going on can vote with their feet and leave (“Not leaving,” Nov. 25 Letters to the Editor).
While Kobach may suffer from delusions of grandeur, he’s not what will cause Kansans to leave. What will drive people of all political affiliations out of Kansas is when their property taxes, which are already some of the highest in the region, go through the roof because an ill-conceived state income-tax reduction plan fails to produce the projected pie-in-the-sky economic growth.
WILLIAM C. SKAER
Let me get this straight. The city of Buhler has a sign that depicts a cross. The Freedom From Religion Foundation “complained” that the cross is a religious symbol. The city of Buhler caved to an out-of-state entity to replace the sign (Nov. 29 Eagle).
If my history lessons are correct, this country was founded by God-fearing men. The Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” I would guess that this Wisconsin-based “foundation” has nothing better to do than to try to force its agenda on the people of Buhler and the state of Kansas. The American Civil Liberties Union does the same thing.
Don’t you think it’s about time that we stand up to these entities instead of becoming a bunch of namby-pambies?
President Obama still has his pen ready to sign the extension of the Bush tax cuts for bottom-class individuals earning less than $200,000 (and couples less than $250,000), while raising the taxes for the upper class. “Bottoms” and “uppers” – how muddled it can get when actual human beings are made to line up on one side of the demarcation or the other. We all wonder if they will be transporting us to a good labor camp or a bad one.
When we view it as a continuum – from those who pay no income taxes to that one person in the land of plenty who has the distinction of paying the most – we readily discern Warren Buffett atop his high horse way out there on the fringe, while the greatest mass of humanity appears all squished together in the middle, spreading like oozing liquid to its outer edges.
George W. Bush is destined to go down as the country’s second-worst leader. He reduced the amount of private property stolen from workers striving to make their own prosperity. But he failed miserably to even attempt to reduce the size and scope of an empire those same workers have been made to mortgage their futures against in order to keep business as usual funded for central bureaucrats.
Who is destined to go down as the country’s worst leader? Go figure.
RON A. HOFFMAN
The article “Climate skeptics challenge energy laws” (Nov. 26 Eagle) may as well have been headlined “Climate skeptics challenge science,” as virtually all climate scientists are agreed that the threat of climate change is very real.
We know global climate change is coming, and it could be disastrous. (Has anyone been boating on the Arkansas River lately?)
The article threw out some big numbers – such as $644 million over eight years for Kansas’ compliance with its renewable-energy standards. But that’s $80.5 million per year for 2.8 million people, which comes out to be $2.40 per month per person. Pretty cheap insurance against what science believes to be a sure thing.
Go the sensible route: Develop alternate sources of power. In the end, the cost of these new industries will decrease, and energy costs may become lower than the oil, gas and coal they replace. In the meantime, new jobs will have been created.
Not on demand
An amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act would allow women in the military who are raped to have access to abortions at military facilities.
Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., stood against women in the military having the right to an abortion if raped by a fellow soldier, unless to save the life of the mother. Roberts stated he opposed “abortion on demand” but would support legislation “that strengthens the moral fabric of our society.”
What in the world was the senator talking about with the phrase “abortion on demand”? No woman in America is getting “abortions on demand.”
In Kansas there are multiple layers of regulations to follow before a woman has access to an abortion.
It is outrageous and shameful that our senator would smugly suggest that women in the military, who are risking their lives for this nation, are just selfish individuals expecting our government to provide them with “abortions on demand.” No woman should be forced to give birth to her rapist’s child just because an arrogant senator thinks he can sit in judgment of women.
VICKIE SANDELL STANGL