Referendum C and D
Re: “People of faith rally to C and D.”
The following is in response to Bob Ewegen’s column, “People of faith rally to C and D.” In arguing for Referendums C and D, Bob Ewegen is correct that the principles of all major religions teach that we have a moral obligation to care for the poor and disadvantaged. But voting to take from some to give to others doesn’t count as compassion.
Each person must decide whether and how to assist the poor using his or her own time, talent and treasure. There is nothing wrong with collective efforts, but participation must be voluntary. The problem with C and D is that they are government solutions, founded on coercion.
Rich Cantillon, Centennial
Sex offender complexes
Re: “Separation proposed for sex offenders,” Oct. 10 Page 1 story.
Greig Veeder’s idea about placing sex offenders (such as a rapists and child molesters) into containment complexes is a good move toward a safer society. Containment complexes would allow authorities to have greater supervision over these violent offenders. Veeder states all these offenders would only be permitted to leave the complex for work or approved errands.
This plan might also reduce the recidivism rate of sex offenders, since more than half re-offend. If other states do it, why can’t Colorado have a similar permanent containment facility?
Cost would be the biggest obstacle in implementing the plan, but shouldn’t society be more interested in safety than cost? Wouldn’t we as a society feel more comfortable knowing exactly who and where these sex offenders are?
Thomas Cordova, Denver
Ruling on term limits
Re: “Suthers’ glass is half empty,” Oct. 20 editorial.
Obviously, Attorney General John Suthers put a great deal of thought into a difficult legal question concerning term limits and how it affects Sen. Joan Fitz-Gerald, and it was wholly unfair for The Post to characterize his opinion as “tortured” or to insinuate that it was politically motivated. Nor was it accurate to state that he ruled contrary to legal precedent, as none exists – thus, the need for his opinion.
Common sense dictates that someone who is elected to fill a Senate seat at a mid-term election and serves two full legislative sessions has served one-half of that term. The bottom line is that Suthers was right, and stood up for the citizens of Colorado.
David B. Wilson, Steamboat Springs
Dems and tax hikes
It was predictable that once the Democrats took control of the state legislature last January – for the first time in a generation – they immediately crafted a huge spending increase for all of us to vote on: Referendums C and D. What a surprise.
Could it be that the legislature simply needs to tighten its belt in recessionary years (like the rest of us do) and limit its tax increases to cover only those spending items (like Amendment 23) that are required by law to exceed the TABOR-imposed growth limits?
In other words, shouldn’t the legislature go back to doing its job the way it did before the Democrats became the majority?
Michael Thomas, Englewood
