Reform Congress’ entitlements
Regarding “Pompeo: Time for entitlement reforms” (Oct. 8 Eagle): I don’t normally agree with Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Wichita, about much, but I have to agree with his position on entitlements – though not the same ones.
I believe the congressional sessions should be for three months each year, the same as most state legislatures. Lawmakers would be paid by the day. They actually don’t work that much anyway.
We can end congressional pensions. They can get real jobs and earn pensions and also draw Social Security, like the people now paying for their bloated pensions when they leave office.
Premium content for only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
They will no longer get their medical bills paid by the taxpayers. If their private employer doesn’t provide medical insurance, the Affordable Care Act can help them with that.
If an issue comes up that the president needs them on, he can call a special session, just as governors do.
I don’t know how members of Congress got to be royalty, but their lifestyle indicates they have. When Pompeo gets off the dole, I would like to talk to him about the entitlements I paid for that he and his friends in Washington, D.C., spent.
Is there a better gig out there than the one Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Wichita, has? I doubt it. A Republican politician representing the Koch brothers – uh, I mean the 4th Congressional District in Kansas. It’s gotta be a dream job. As long as he toes the line, he’ll be fine.
If President Obama wants it, the answer is “no.” If a corporation wants it, the answer is “yes.” No thinking required. Could it be any easier? It’s basically a life appointment; he just has to watch his step.
Pompeo is employed by, being paid by and getting his health coverage from an institution he condemns. I imagine he’s the envy of every Republican politician in Kansas.
The government used our money to buy scenic land with the intent to preserve it for our enjoyment. Now with the government shutdown, it withholds the promised land, denying us the enjoyment of our national parks. That’s a very childish “take my ball and go home” mentality.
Why would we ever want to trust the government with our health care? What other promise might it withhold?
Regarding the assertion by Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., that the Affordable Care Act is increasing health care premiums (“Supported centers before the ACA,” Oct. 6 Letters to the Editor): As a 63-year-old male paying for private health insurance, I was delighted last week when I received my new insurance premium from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas. The increase was only $16, which is by far the smallest percentage increase I have seen over the past seven years.
The Republicans’ spin against what they refer to as Obamacare is just that: spin.
People who make up less than a fourth of Congress – and who do not like or believe in government – are shutting down our government. They are doing this because they don’t want a law that was passed by Congress to go into effect. This law is so desperately needed by so many that you can’t even get on the website that is the vehicle to participate in the law.
I see a problem here. We live in a democracy. Our country is based on compromise. The majority has voted and spoken. Pay the bills on the money we have already spent, and have a lively debate about how we can make the Affordable Care Act better at the appropriate time. Put your energy into improvement, not discrediting, our country. The majority is tired of this nonsense.
Ike was better
A letter argued against naming the new airport after Dwight D. Eisenhower (“Ike bad choice,” Oct. 8 Letters to the Editor). There were numerous inaccuracies in the letter, but I wish to concentrate on the military aspect.
The writer contended that either Bernard Montgomery or George S. Patton would have been a far better choice as supreme commander than Eisenhower. That badly misjudges the requirements of the position.
Montgomery and Patton were both able strategists, but high command is not merely a matter of drawing lines on a map. Both lacked the temperament necessary to lead a vast army of multiple nationalities and interests. Montgomery routinely alienated his colleagues, British and American; a press conference he gave after the Ardennes campaign nearly capsized the Allied command structure. Patton’s raving anti-Semitism would have robbed the Allied cause of its carefully cultivated veneer of moral superiority, and his anti-communism would have only increased the tensions between the Soviet and American armies in the immediate aftermath of the war.
Eisenhower certainly had his deficiencies as a strategist, but no one else in either the British or American armies had the personal qualities or moral courage necessary for the position of supreme commander.
RYAN T. JACKSON