I'm writing in regards to your Dec. 5 editorial, "Demos, GOP must listen to the voters and cut a budget deal." Let me first congratulate you on taking a looming problem and turning it into another inane diatribe on President Bush, Republicans and the Tea Party. Obama has been president for four years and will be for four more. Let it go sir!
This is my second draft of a reply to your editorial. The first one was three pages long -- then it hit me. How do you rebut emotions? We say we need spending cuts and you reply we want to throw grandma off the cliff or starve her. That's a purely emotional response. It's never, "sure there is a lot of fraud, waste and duplicate programs out there, let's start there."
You lift your torches and pitchforks and cry out -- raise taxes, raise taxes, then quickly add, only on the rich. Make them pay their fair share, what does that mean? They already pay a higher share/rate on their earned income than the rest of us.
Wow, is this the New American Dream, work hard, save your money, live within your means just so you can pay more taxes to those who are voting for a free ride.
Now, I'm sure you are completely outraged at that comment. You must have at least 20 stories you can cite about people who are helped daily through all the different programs out there. I know a few myself.
But your response is emotional, you have to know of other stories about people who are playing the system and cheating.
So, no sir, rebutting your editorial just isn't worth it.
-- Jim Binnell
Editor's note: May not be worth it, you say, but you actually did a pretty good job. Nice to see somebody build an alternative argument and have the courage to sign it for publication. Thanks.