Letters to the Editor for May 13, 2013

Last Modified: Saturday, May 11, 2013 at 10:54 p.m.

U.S. in decline

The Associated Press article “Africa is riskiest place to be born” (May 8) overlooked important information.

The Save the Children source in the article stated that 68 countries do better with new births than the United States, “Each year, about 11,300 U.S. babies die the day they are born, which is 50 percent more deaths than all other industrialized counties combined.” Another 11,000 or more die during the first year.

India has the highest rate of deaths at birth, followed by Nigeria, Pakistan and China.

According to the article, a high rate of preterm birth (U.S. is 130th in the world), teen pregnancies (U.S. is highest of industrial countries) and a lack of prenatal care for poor women contributed to the poor showing. Other factors cited are unplanned pregnancies, poverty, premature delivery and congenital defects.

The deterioration of the family has contributed heavily to unplanned pregnancies, stress and poverty. Traditional families provide mothers and children with proper care, both prenatal and postnatal — care that cannot be found in any other venue.

A malignant poverty is growing in the United States, fertilized by the loss of the tools by which wealth is produced. The production of wealth now requires that we compete with the world's poorest nations, and since our wage scales have not yet fallen to that level, large-scale job creation is difficult.

Most of us think of the United States as a safe, healthy and wealthy nation, but statistics are beginning to show otherwise.

Al Cronkrite


Unintended consequences

As the clock ticks down on Obamacare, are there unintended consequences for American workers whose jobs do not provide health insurance?

My granddaughter, who lives in upstate New York, works 35-39 hours per week as a counselor for at-risk youth. Her job is funded by grant money from the county in which she lives. Her current job does not include health insurance. At a recent staff meeting, the workers were advised that effective Jan. 1, 2014, their working hours will all be restricted to 24 hours per week or less.

According to her employer, under the rules of Obamacare, employers will be required to provide health insurance for all employees who work 25 hours per week or more. As their program is funded by grants, which tend to be reduced under each new county budget, they do not have the capital to fund health care.

How many full-time employees are suddenly going to become part-time workers? Is the voting constituency aware of this?

Barbara Owen


Gun control

Why are the politicians once again going backwards? The reason new laws need to be enacted is to curtail or prevent the violence created by robbery and murder. You don't accomplish this by simply removing guns from the honest, law-abiding citizens. Guns must be removed from the hands of bad people.

If bad people with guns know that a homeowner or business does not have a gun, they become fair game to easily rob and murder. Good people own guns for three reasons: Good people hunt, good people target practice and good people like protection. Bad people use them for robbery or murder.

The president and other politicians are guarded by the Secret Service or professional bodyguards who always carry guns. These people carry guns for protection. Is their protection more important than yours and mine? I think not. If politicians want to enact effective gun control laws, I suggest the following:

Automatic five-year sentence for carrying a gun without a concealed weapon permit;

Automatic 10-year sentence if guns are used during any crime;

Automatic death sentence when a person is found guilty of murder;

Mandatory reporting by physicians who believe they are treating a mentally ill person who is becoming dangerous to others.

These or similar laws would put some meat in the system. If the sentence is automatic and the bad people know they will go directly to jail, gun crime would be drastically reduced.

Gordon Clements


When will we learn?

This is response to the letter, “Enough Bush bashing.”

First the writer has to get his information correct. Both houses of Congress did vote for Saddam Hussein's removal, but Karl Rove pushed the issue right before the elections and all congressmen were concerned that if they did not vote yes they would not get re-elected.

Also remember, Bush pushed hard not to let the weapons inspectors complete their job, for if he did we would not have had a war because their weren't any and we would not have lost all those kids.

I see the real effects of Iraq at the VA for the boys who are now home with lost limbs and trauma, not to mention the trillion-dollar-plus wasted. Maybe we would not be in such debt as a country if we hadn't gone.

Finally, notice how cautious President Obama is about Syria. He understands the consequences of going to war unjustified.

As a Vietnam veteran, I am very upset that we went to war there. I thought after losing close to 60,000 kids in that war we would have learned something.

Jack Goebel


$30 fine? LOL!

Only a $30 fine for texting while driving — and only if stopped for something else. Talk about a slap on the wrist. Maybe we should consider paddling for them, too.

Our decision-makers have turned theses serious issues into supreme jokes.

Marie Juliano



▲ Return to Top