Letters to the editor on caring for children, charity at home, liquor sales, Bel Aire development, gun control, pork, Obamacare
01/11/2013 6:36 PM
01/11/2013 6:36 PM
Need epiphany on caring for children
It was ironic that the article “Kansas’ poor: ‘On their own’?” (Jan. 6 Eagle) appeared on the day of Epiphany, when the Gospel selection that day dealt with the wise men’s meeting with King Herod, who falsely claimed he wanted to see the baby Jesus. What Herod intended was to put the child in an early grave, because he saw Christ’s birth as a threat to his political status.
When the example of the wise men’s concern for a little child is examined in light of God’s commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves, Christians accept as a corollary our covenant that we help care for our neighbors’ children. One way we do this is by paying taxes.
We now see Gov. Sam Brownback, an avowed Christian who wants to improve the lives of children, advocating reductions of funds designed to educate and protect children in an effort to make their parents more responsible. His goal is laudable, his strategy deplorable.
If he blocks the federal expansion of Medicaid, he will place at risk children’s access to health care, at no cost to Kansas taxpayers for three years. He also likely will soon ask legislators to reduce funding of programs aimed at improving the health and educations of Kansas children.
We must respond by voicing our concerns to the governor and his legislative supporters, hoping it leads to their epiphanies about our mutual responsibilities to future generations.
Charity at home
While developed countries and their clueless politicians delude themselves that central government must provide “social security” for everyone at every age, the Chinese government is reminding its citizens of their familial responsibilities. In China, as the elderly need more care, their children are expected to provide it. This is burdensome, but given the huge population of Chinese 50- to 75-year-olds, the Chinese government wisely recognizes that state-sponsored security programs simply cannot be the major caregiver for the elderly – without massive increases in bureaucracy and taxes.
I don’t know about you, but I would much rather keep my money, let my kids keep theirs and rely on each other, not special interests in Washington, D.C., for a shared security.
Family integrity in America has been decimated by years of a central government usurping family authority in the name of assuming family responsibility. The state is now our eternal father and our everlasting mother, empowered and responsible to care for each of us from cradle to grave. Adding insult to injury, the state deludes us with knowingly false promises that our security is “owed to” and “held in trust” for us.
Once the role of family has been usurped by a central government, the intergenerational fabric of the civilization is doomed to be torn apart (as is now occurring in America).
Wine and cookies?
Regarding “Coalition will push to broaden liquor sales” (Jan. 4 Eagle): I’m all for progress, but do we really need liquor sales in our grocery stores? Many grocery stores already have grown to include furniture, fine jewelry and other wares such that it’s easier to find a new area rug than it is to find all the items on your grocery list. Where are the liquor aisles supposed to go? Where the frozen vegetables used to be?
Many teens work in grocery stores and by law can’t sell you the “near beer” already sold in grocery stores. Will our wait in the checkout line be even longer while the underage checker finds someone else old enough to ring up all the hooch?
And what will be next? Liquor stores that sell food? That’s what some hardworking liquor-store owners might have to do to stay in business if all their would-be customers are across the street at Walmart shopping for wine and cookies while waiting on an oil change.
BETH A. QUINN
Fix road first
I am a strong proponent for the evolving retail landscape in north Wichita, specifically the development planned at North Rock Road and K-254 (“Massive complex proposed for Bel Aire,” Jan. 5 Business Today). I have one favor to ask.
Leaders, whether city, state or federal: Please consider improving the traffic interchange prior to any development. That intersection is marginally safe today. It will totally fail to support any reasonable increase in traffic.
GERALD D. FRASER
During these times of mass murders of children and others, maybe we should at least begin to think about firearms in a reasonable manner.
Many solutions have been proposed, including some I would very much agree with. But most of those solutions seem to involve the firearms rather than the people who own them.
Perhaps Kansas ought to think about what was required back in the 1960s in New York, when I was granted a pistol permit in that state. Beyond the fingerprints that went to the local police, the county sheriff, the state police and the FBI, and the criminal-records check, and the fact that I had to buy (but not possess) the handgun so that its serial number could be provided with the permit application, I also had to provide the names of three people who had themselves never been convicted of a felony, who had known me for more than five years, and who would provide a statement indicating that they thought it would be a good idea for me to own and carry such a weapon.
Why don’t we just try that on for size? We require references for employment and in a number of other circumstances; why not for carrying a concealed firearm? Worth thinking about?
PHILIP H. SCHNEIDER
The article “More tax increases sought as crises near” (Jan. 10 Eagle) quoted the White House spokesman as saying that “there are loopholes crying out to be closed that no longer serve the country, if they ever did.”
Even more, there is so much pork in the budget that no longer serves the country, if it ever did. But do they eliminate that? No, they just keep milking the old cow (the American taxpayer) for more and more. Legalized extortion is all it is.
The Affordable Care Act passed by Congress and pronounced legal by the U.S. Supreme Court is referred to by many as “Obamacare.” This term is not only derogatory, in my opinion, but erroneous. It implies that this plan is somehow President Obama’s personal “pet project” that he intends to impose on the American people.
This is inaccurate. Presidents, legislators, medical professionals and many others have agreed for decades that our health care system is broken and that those who need health care coverage are not getting it. This epidemic has been addressed by every presidential administration over the past decades, some more than others. Thus this effort is not new.
What Obama did was to make it a priority and reach across the aisle to form a solution. It has its weakness, and some parts of it will not be successful. We will need to continually shape it to meet the needs of individuals, employers and the health care industry. But it does move toward insuring health care for all. And contrary to what critics claim, this plan includes the free market; it is not a move toward a single-payer system.
We must all work together. If we, including our politicians, refuse to do so, it will only allow the continuation of a broken system that hurts us all.