Politics and the salary of Metro’s president
Re: “Big raise for top Metro post,” May 5 news story.
At a time of severe shortages when our elected officials are showcasing their bipartisanship in addressing the TABOR fiasco, it is a slap in the face to educators and taxpayers for Gov. Bill Owens’ appointed trustees at Metropolitan State College of Denver to give sole presidential candidate Stephen Jordan such obscene salary and benefits.
This is exactly why a bill that regulates party affiliation of board members is needed. If one is concerned about liberal bias in the classroom, one should be more alarmed by the fact that most board members and administrators are conservative. The activities of such boards are much more damaging to our educational system than are the activities of a few rogue liberal professors telling little Nickie something with which he disagrees. The decisions of Gov. Owens and his appointees are hastening the demise of public education and edging us ever closer to the privatization of education.
It’s time to reactivate our political sensibilities, conceive ourselves as public intellectuals and realize that democratic possibilities are limited within this two-party system.
Oneida J. Meranto, Denver
The writer is a political science professor at Metropolitan State College of Denver.
Possible closure of military bases
Re: “Colo. hopes to avoid closures,” May 10 editorial.
I get tired of people treating military bases like community welfare programs. The purpose of a military base is to aid in the defense of our entire country, not provide jobs and other revenue streams to a few select local economies.
This welfare entitlement attitude makes it that much harder to manage an already very hard problem of where we really need these people and what we really need them to be doing. What it does to the local economy shouldn’t really be a factor if a base needs to be redefined, moved, mothballed or closed altogether to best defend our country. But once the local pundits and politicians get involved, they pretty much derail our national defense agenda in favor of pandering for more money to be pumped into their local economy and thereby voting district.
Some politicians are trying to do nothing less than buy their way into another four-year term at the expense of every other taxpayer that happens to live outside of their voting district. The ones in uniform putting their lives on the line are especially feeling the sting of this dishonorable activity.
Is it really worth our troops having to do without proper body armor so that some small local businesses in Colorado, Florida, California, Arizona, Germany and countless other places stay tapped into a never-ending gravy train of government slop? These people’s job is to defend our entire country, not prop up our local economies.
Shaun A. McMaster, Broomfield
Trusting parents’ judgment on school choice
Re: “History of school choice in Colorado,” May 9 Open Forum.
Colorado Education Association president Ron Brady writes that columnist David Harsanyi’s views on school choice in Colorado are narrow (“Lawmakers roll eyes at school choice,” April 28 column). Colorado is a leader in school choice, and indeed has made progress, but it was accomplished despite resistance from the likes of the Colorado Education Association, the Colorado Association of School Boards and the Colorado Association of School Executives.
Brady states that choice comes with a price tag, and state Sen. Sue Windels and other legislators believe in local control. Then why did the Senate Education Committee pass legislation that redirected funding from the State Education Fund to a private organization to supply supplementary online courses? This was not about local control.
Brady states that the CEA does not support choice at the expense of other children. What that really means is that we will not support you, the parents, when you try to make a choice that is best for your children. If we truly believe in choice, let us move to give all parents/students full option of choice. It appears that legislators and these other auspicious education leaders do not trust parents’ judgment on what is in the best interest of their children.
Terry L. Smith, Parker
Medicare for illegals
Re: “U.S. to help ERs treat immigrants,” May 10 news story.
Just announced this week, the new Medicare prescription program will leave very poor seniors choosing between their food stamps and their medicine. It was also reported this week that the Bush administration has directed $1 billion of Medicare funds be given to hospitals to cover the costs of treating illegal aliens with the caveat that the hospitals do not directly ask if the patients are legal or not. It would seem that the elderly poor need to pretend they are undocumented immigrants to get the health care they need.
Cynthia Pedersen, Westminster
Federal “birth tax”
Re: “House estate-tax reform a Trojan horse,” May 9 editorial.
Republicans in Congress lately have been devoting lots of their time to getting rid of the “death tax.” This would benefit only the wealthy.
Now if we could only get our Republican Congress to do something about the “birth tax” to help the rest of us. Each baby born in the United States today is born into a national debt that as of May 10 amounts to $26,193.08 for each man, woman and child in the country. “Welcome into the world, baby X. I’m your Uncle Sam, and you owe me more than $26,000.”
Thanks to the “cut taxes and spend” Republicans, the national debt has been increasing an average of $1.69 billion per day since Sept. 30, 2004. The Republican answer? Cut taxes and increase spending.
The death tax? Don’t worry, if you’re like 98 percent of us, it won’t impact you. On the other hand, get used to the birth tax. You’ll be paying on it the rest of your life.
Craig Sommer, Fort Collins
Bush’s visit to Georgia
Re: “Bush holds up Georgia as beacon of democracy,” May 11 news story.
Suppose Russian president Vladimir Putin visited Mexico, mourned the vast Mexican lands seized by the U.S., denounced Wilson’s occupation of Vera Cruz and other presidential invasions, and said that Mexican sovereignty and territorial integrity must never be threatened by the U.S. again.
Would this be considered an unfriendly act? Would the media be treating these comments with overwhelming deference and respect?
Gus Molinari, Aurora
When did Bush decide to invade Iraq?
Re: “Memo: Bush wanted Hussein out in ’02,” May 10 news story.
Thanks to The Post for printing the article describing a leaked memo from Britain’s intelligence service. It revealed that the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq as early as July 2002 and that the administration planned to tailor intelligence and to hype the possibility of WMDs and al-Qaeda links to justify the invasion. British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s administration has not denied the truth of the memo, and Bush staffers have declined to comment on “leaked British documents.” However, an anonymous, credible source, who served in the administration at that time, reported that the memo’s content was accurate.
If that is the case, the president and his Cabinet lied to the American people and to Congress about their motives for invading Iraq. The war has cost almost $300 billion so far, claimed 1,600 brave soldiers, wounded 10,000 or more troops, and killed thousands of innocent Iraqi women and children. We should insist upon an independent investigation of Bush’s pre-war manipulation of intelligence and disregard the fraudulent findings produced by the commission that he created.
Ed Cable, Denver
TO REACH OPINION EDITORS
Phone: 303-820-1331
Fax: 303-820-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202
Letters guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
