Do homework on ag

Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein ("For farm lobby, too much isn't enough," June 28) clearly did not do his homework on how climate change regulations could effect food production in our nation. Insults about our work on behalf of America's farm and ranch families are a poor substitute.

Even considering the public investment America makes to ensure domestic food production, many farmers and ranchers today live on razor-thin margins. Any increased cost, regulatory or otherwise, comes directly out of that margin.

Unlike most businesses, in our economic system most farmers simply cannot pass costs along. Make no mistake, even with potential offsets, the cost of proposed climate change regulations will, at a minimum, slash net farm income by $5 billion a year by 2020. We believe preserving America's family-owned structure of food production deserves additional consideration.

The proposed regulations also create an "energy deficit" for the United States by curtailing the use of fossil fuels without supplying any immediate alternatives. Agriculture is an energy-intensive enterprise, but it also possesses the valuable ability to soak up the perils of carbon in our crops and soils. Our nation must not discount that fact, or our farmers' abilities to help fuel our nation with renewable and recycled energy from our crops, our livestock and the wind that blows across our land.

At a time when nations such as China show no sign of adopting similar provisions, instead pumping even more carbon into the atmosphere than any U.S. program could ever remove, the proposals currently before us offer only costly and empty solutions.

Bob Stallman, president, American Farm Bureau Federation

Freedom to be ignorant

At the Wednesday remembrance a week ago on O Street for the victims of the Iranian uprising, an "American patriot" began shouting obscenities at the startled, mostly Iranian students who were showing their outrage at the measures the Iranian government has been using against its people. I don't think this man was showing his support for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or the Iranian regime; he was just ignorant of everything but his own bias.

As repressive as the Iranian Islamic Republic's government is, it can't hold a candle to the repression of the Shah of Iran's regime. I wonder how many Americans know that back in 1953, our CIA overthrew the freely elected government of Muhammad Mossadeq and placed our puppet the Shah upon the Peacock Throne.

It's ironic when we say we would like to see a truly democratic, secular Iran willing to engage the West, because with Mossadeq, that is exactly what we and Iran had.

Unfortunately, he was a socialist. His government's socialism was homegrown, not imported from the Soviet Union, but at the time we were so paranoid about the spread of "godless communism" that we couldn't tell the difference.

What the world loves and admires most about the U.S.A. is our freedom, including the freedom to be ignorant. But what they resent about us is our tendency to disregard the ideals and values upon which this country was founded. Do what I say, not what I do is our mantra, which wins the hearts and minds of no one.

Walt Bleich, Lincoln

Good riddance

I read in the June 24 Journal Star ("Obama takes on insurers over government plan") that insurance industry lobbyists told the president they were concerned a government-run health insurance alternative would run them out of business. They should be concerned. Once a viable government program is in place, the businesses that offer employees comprehensive health insurance are going to want to be let off the hook for this responsibility.

The only reason employer-sponsored plans are affordable is because the employer generally pays 50 percent or more of the premium, and this has probably been the fastest-growing business expense for the past 20 years. Business leaders won't say so yet because they don't want the bad publicity of being called a communist or being accused of not caring about their employees' health, but what CEO wouldn't want to see this runaway expense removed from the books? If the government has a good program, why not let it take care of health care?

I can't feel too bad for the insurance industry. It's had decades to build a system that makes health care affordable and available to all, and it's failed miserably.

And don't talk to me about choice; under the current system, if you're lucky enough to work for a business that offers affordable health insurance, you either go with the plan your employer offers or you go without.

And rationing? What do you think the insurance industry has been doing? Like any type of insurance, it maximizes profits by minimizing payouts. To this end, those who are most likely to need health care are excluded from buying insurance.

I would much rather have my health needs overseen by a bureaucrat than by an insurance executive who answers first to his board of directors and stockholders.

Jeffrey W. Lengel, Lincoln

Think tort reform

Regarding the Journal Star article "Obama outlines $313B in cuts" (June 14), the cuts are coming from reductions in payments to providers, as is the norm.

These reductions mean a reduction in physician access by patients,reduction in all testing and helpful procedures and restricted services at your hospitals so President Barack Obama can see his cost savings. All of this is at the expense of patients.

Obama and his allies of health care reform will not use the term rationing, but these reductions will be just that.

Here is my solution: tort reform. Medicine as now practiced costs two to three times as much as need be because of defensive medicine.

Of course the Dems and Obama will never allow tort reform. Why? Because trial lawyers have heaped millions upon millions in donations to these politicians.

Want proof? Obama dodged the question of tort reform at his appearance at the June meeting of the American Medical Association. He wanted the injured to be compensated, ignoring the fact that most suits are frivolous, and he does not want a cap.

Nebraska's cap works very well and could be used as an example. Finally, after many years of cuts to all providers, the health care reform cuts will be made at the expense of our patients and the care we will be allowed to offer them.

Dr. John Reed, Lincoln

Save Native sites, too

Regarding the Local View June 25 "Fort Hartsuff is a state gem": Why does the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission spend millions over the years to preserve and maintain military forts but does not save any of the thousands of Native village sites in Nebraska?

I won't encourage anyone to voice opposition to closing any fort under this arrangement.

Dick Vaughn, Seward