It is time for the House and the Senate to put aside political bickering and focus on those things that will most help this country.
Posted: Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:00 am
It is time for the House and the Senate to put aside political bickering and focus on those things that will most help this country. There are three things, all interrelated, that Congress needs to work on with purpose and speed. These are the national debt, national security and reduced dependence on foreign oil.
Even President Barack Obama says we are out of money! This year alone, we have added more than $1 trillion to our debt. Congress needs to say no to new spending! No health bill - which will cost at least $1 trillion that we don't have - to insure 47 million people, nearly a quarter of them here illegally. It also means no climate change bill - which by itself will lower the standard of living for all Americans by increasing the cost of energy for everyone. Besides, why should we penalize ourselves when both China and India pay no attention to fouling the air? We must pay more interest to borrow money because our spending is making the dollar less valuable. If we continue, inflation will be a fact, and then we won't be able to borrow!
The next two priorities really go together. Our national security is closely tied to the availability of oil. While we have a substantial strategic reserve of oil, our national security still depends on getting oil from people who do not have our security at the top of their list. Why continue to do this when we have a lot of oil in the United States?
The faster we develop these oil resources, the sooner we will spend less to import oil. The savings then can help pay down the debt and help develop new energy sources such as nuclear power, wind energy, etc.
We know that the above will not be easy, but action is required now.
Norma and Jim Bailey, Lincoln
Stuck with a ruling
There is a profound reason our government was organized into three parts.
The legislature is elected by and answers to the people. When legislators write a bill, they should utilize all available information. That information should include input from their constituents, judicial opinions and foreign law. If the people do not like the laws passed by our legislators, they have a final verdict and can vote them out of office.
The second branch of government is the administration. The president has to sign every bill passed by the legislature into law. At that point, the people still can be heard by the president and the bill may or may not be signed. The president is subject to the approval of the people.
The resulting law would be fair but should leave judges enough room for unusual circumstances. Judges can declare a law unconstitutional or they can enforce the law as it was signed. Our Constitution is the final authority on the laws of this land. The Constitution does not give the judges the power to rewrite laws or to use foreign laws and empathy to make decisions.
Federal judges are nominated by the administration and then approved by the Senate. Judges are appointed for life. If a judge runs amok and declares that foreign laws or empathy were major considerations in deciding a case, he is simply using this as an excuse to push his own agenda, and "We The People" are stuck living with his ruling.
Richard Pullman, Hallam
Step in wrong direction
Thanks to the Journal Star for featuring my backyard chickens in the context of the USDA-proposed National Animal Identification System ("Man worries about government sticking its head in the henhouse," July 4). I would like to provide some additional comments about the animal ID system.
If we are really concerned about disease outbreak, the ID system is a step in the wrong direction. Instead of doing more to ensure the quality of meat coming into the country, the USDA continues to relax import standards. The tracking of animals through the system ends at the slaughterhouse. On top of that, the USDA has no real system in place to trace contaminated meat back to the slaughterhouse, where most foodborne illnesses begin.
If the proposed animal ID system is the most effective plan the USDA can come up with, I fear for the integrity of the farming industry in the United States. Small family farms - which produce better food with less of an impact on the land - surely will see their profits diminished and quite possibly their whole operation ruined. Large confinement operations were developed to absorb such costs and will hardly be affected by the animal ID system. This is agribusiness policy being enforced by the USDA.
I encourage people to read the animal ID system documents to find even more appalling information.
Chris Bambery, Lincoln
Source of this 'right'
I keep hearing the comment, "Health care is a basic right." But where does this "right" derive from? The Declaration of Independence states: "Endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights." It does not mention health care.
"Creator"? If you assume a creator, do you not also assume that in creation, He made the African in the Congo dying of tuberculosis or AIDS just as important as we are? So how can you justify spending $100 on a visit to a medical doctor when the same money would buy the African three years of life? Or prevent the maternal-fetal transmission of HIV for 10 babies?
OK, assume there isn't a creator. Our government endows us with this "right." Then it has to enslave another group of people to provide this "right" because the government doesn't just dole out health care; people provide it. The government has the right and duty to take away all your soft drinks, the big Macs, the french fries. You have a right to be healthy!
I attended a health care town meeting when Don Wesely was mayor. One person complained of not being able to take a child to the doctor for a cold. My internal reaction: "Why do you think an M.D. visit is necessary for a cold?" Another said insurance refused to pay for fertility treatments.
People, government health care is rationed health care, either by time restraints or by bureaucratic rules. Maybe we are ready for that: a single-payer plan with mediocre care for everyone, no choice of doctors, longer waits for appointments, interminable waits for elective surgery, payments under the table to get service in hospitals (as in Russia), and the really rich can go out of the country and pay cash for concierge service and the attention of specialists.
Retired Dr. Ralph A. Ewert
Things to consider
Congress is now finalizing decisions regarding health care reform, so only a limited opportunity remains to influence this legislation so important to Americans. Our Nebraska delegation in Washington should consider the following when contemplating reform of our current inadequate health care system:
* Choice: All Americans should be able to choose their provider and health care plan. One choice should be a government plan similar to Medicare, but financially self-sustaining.
* Universal coverage: All Americans must have easy access to quality and affordable health care.
* Cost containment: Escalating costs for medications, medical care and treatment are intolerable to families, individuals, employers and government entities. Inability to pay health-related debt is the No. 1 reason individuals are forced to file for personal bankruptcy in the United States. The cost must be controlled.
* Public health: An essential element of quality health care is the preventative care provided by public health entities at the local, state and federal level. Adequate funding for public health will reduce health care costs by averting the need for expensive medical care.
We, as Americans, deserve no less than this. Let our thinking not be adversely influenced by those who use deceptive alarm tactics to misinform for self-serving reasons.
Dr. Ed Schneider, Lincoln