Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

President's budget reflects a questionable set of values

I am be deeply concerned about the values reflected in the president's budget request.

The president's budget promises endless war and increasing insecurity. It promises only increasing disparity in wealth, incomes and opportunities between the haves and the have-nots.

This budget will only make life harder for many on the edge of poverty; it will not assure that the basic human needs of the most vulnerable in our communities are met. It ignores the ominous trend in the degradation and depletion of the earth's resources.

Our senators and representatives should stand up and challenge these misplaced priorities. The president's budget priorities do not reflect the values that are most important to me, and I don't think his budget reflects the values shared by most Americans.

Cuts to education are a blunder

The latest budget proposal by the Bush administration is a disaster. The cuts proposed to various programs seem to always target those who need federal programs most: working, low-income and elderly Americans.

Taken as a whole, the changes to the educational system seem the most glaring blunder. Bush proposes to cut vocational training, extend the testing requirements of "No Child Left Behind," cut college grants and scholarships and cut overall educational spending. This means that more students will drop out of high school without at least vocational skills that might help them earn more as working Americans. Those who make it through high school will find it even more difficult to pay the skyrocketing costs of college.

Bush seems to think that the only people who deserve an education are those who can pay for it themselves. His latest budget states very clearly that he is willing to sacrifice everything that America stands for before his precious tax cuts for his wealthy friends. Now I can see why he didn't want to discuss economic policy much before he had secured re-election.

Military budget deserves some cuts

Reading the Associated Press' account of the president's proposed 2006 budget (Proposed '06 budget is Bush's toughest yet , Feb. 6) and realizing what is happening to our financial strength, isn't it time to take drastic action to reduce spending?

Seeing all the minuscule proposed reductions in the budget, then reading that the Pentagon's budget would grow by 4.8 percent to $419.3-billion, I would ask: Have you taken a look at the spending of the world's countries for defense?

Do you believe the United States is the world's wealthiest nation? If we had a business audit and paid our debts, we would be bankrupt.

Why is it necessary to keep building experimental big weapons for mass destruction when we are fighting "insurgents" in Iraq and Afghanistan without them? Why do we need more and more big bombers and fuel carriers? Are we planning on another big war? If so, with whom?

A slashing of the bloated $419.3-billion Pentagon budget could help to balance the budget.

Apparently President Eisenhower's advice to "beware of the military industrial complex" has not registered with this administration.

Veterans can sacrifice, too

Re: VA budget letters, Feb. 10.

Once again, the media and individuals have lifted a small bit out of context from the whole to enflame a group, i.e. Social Security and now the VA budget copayments.

Why shouldn't we veterans shoulder a little pain like other groups that will lose something in budget cuts and at the same time gain benefits which many of the others will not? I, for one, am tired of hearing vets whine and complain about what, basically, is free or reduced-cost health care. This includes negative comments about the doctors, the nurses, the wait, time to get an appointment, the food, etc.

First, these increase proposals are targeted to Priority 7 and 8 veterans who have higher incomes, above $23,500. They affect neither the service-related disabled nor lower-income vets. An $8 increase in prescriptions and a $250 annual enrollment fee are peanuts when compared to what civilians pay for their prescriptions and hospital/doctor care. See the news release entitled "Administration Seeks $70.8-Billion for VA in 2006" (www.va.gov "Hot Topics" FY 2006 Budget Proposal.

Second, what of the added benefits and services, including such things as:

--A 47 percent increase in health care funding since fiscal year 2001.

--Timely high quality services for returning service members from Iraq and Afghanistan.

--Caring for more than 5.2-million high-priority patients.

--Two new medical facilities and additional funding for five major VA construction projects.

--Expanding the national cemetery system.

--Ending all copayments for former prisoners of war.

Do we, as vets, think we are so special as to be immune from sacrifices the rest of the American people will be making?

Be wary of recruiter's words

Re: Girl's mom ferrets out real story on Guard duty, Feb. 10.

Howard Troxler's column was spot on. I am a former Marine and know about the mendacious nature of recruiters. I have been lied to by a recruiter. I would never take back my service to my country because of a recruiter who lied. Ask those who served in any branch and close to 100 percent will tell you their recruiter lied.

This is a problem as old as time. I am sure Julius Caesar said, "You'll never leave Italy." Should we expect better? Yes. Should the buyer beware? Yes. Should we expect a modicum of common sense from those enlisting? Yes.

I am also a teacher, and you can be sure that if a recruiter told lies to my kids I would call him on the carpet and let his commanding officer know. I did that with a Navy recruiter when I enlisted. Hence the reason I joined the Marines. I suppose the Marines did not lie as much as the others.

Graphic details served no purpose

On Jan. 27, your paper published an article on Katrina Anne "Katie" Froeschle (Records give image of horrific violence, Jan. 27). Katie was my niece and she was an incredible young woman devoted to her family and friends.

Katie's murder on Nov. 12 devastated our family and all of Katie's friends. It was understood that your paper would report the facts of Katie's murder. However, the article, with its horrific, graphic details, served no purpose. It only sensationalized and humiliated the name of a beautiful and upstanding young woman.

If your paper is a conscientious voice for families who have lost a loved one, future reporting should be sensitive, and you should keep in mind how you would want one of your family members to be respectfully written about, not exploited, by the local paper.

[Last modified February 15, 2005, 01:16:18]