Vaccines for all
Re: “Give your kids vaccines,” Oct. 19 guest commentary.
Current vaccines are safe and effective. Paradoxically, in my practice, the children who do have insurance are the ones we have the greatest problem immunizing. Medicaid vaccines are provided for free, and if you don’t have insurance, the state will provide vaccine for free. The children with insurance are not covered for free vaccines. This means that if a child has insurance, but the policy does not cover vaccines, the parents have to pay full price out of pocket. How crazy is that? It is time state government pays for all vaccines for children as part of its public health duty.
Larry Kipe, Craig
Andrews on Beauprez
Re: “Right on all the issues,” Oct. 15 John Andrews column.
I wouldn’t miss reading the columns of my moral compass, John Andrews. When he says turn west, I know east is my true direction. When he endorses Bob “Bush Lite” Beauprez, it confirms my decision to vote for Bill Ritter. Here’s my case for not voting for Mr. Beauprez: Record federal deficits, the disaster in Iraq, nothing done to realistically deal with illegal immigration, shifting health care costs to individuals, unaffordable education, government intrusion in its citizens’ private lives, and voting lockstep with President Bush 98 percent of the time.
Helen Kern, Aurora
…
I shouldn’t be surprised by John Andrews’ hyperbole and fear-mongering, but he continues to find new ways to dumb down the debate. Given the Republicans’ environmental record, his “If you drive, vote GOP” could easily be countered by, “If you breathe, vote Democratic.” And about as many Democrats “dream of returning the West to buffalo and beaver” as Republicans yearn for an endless landscape of oil wells and smokestacks. I shouldn’t complain, though. The longer Andrews continues insulting readers’ intelligence, the more he will bolster Dems’ campaigns.
Corey Kesler, Aurora
7th CD campaign
Re: “Perlmutter blasts ‘draft’; O’Donnell suggested service program for high school boys,” Oct. 4 news story.
Rick O’Donnell defended his published statements from the Jan. 3, 2004, Denver Post, which advocated that boys forgo their last semester in high school to join a national service program, by saying that Ed Perlmutter was distorting his views. He then clarified this by saying that “it would be good for all young men to do this, but we live in a democracy and that means not all of them are going to do it.”
Well, in a true democracy, wouldn’t the young women have a similar obligation, or do they not “waste” their senior year? The concept of national service has great merit, but O’Donnell’s ideas are anachronistic.
O’Donnell recently stated that his idea to abolish Social Security [which he suggested in 1994] was a “mistake prompted by youthful hubris.” This cockeyed idea to “draft senior boys” is not from his youth, but reflects his current thinking. Seems to me that he is still full of hubris – perhaps not youthful, just misguided.
Gale Haley, Lakewood
…
I can’t wait to vote for my congressman. Ed Perlmutter says he wants to do away with lobbyists and that Congress is “beholden to” them. (Ahem; isn’t that what his wife does?) Rick O’Donnell, the so-called political “wunderkind,” thinks it’s OK to take a trip to Panama on Channel 4’s dime, but says he wants to “clean up Congress” and that we need to “draw a line between public service and private gain.” No wonder more than 60 percent of us disapprove of Congress.
Brian Wall, Denver
4th CD candidates
I am concerned about all the negative campaigning between Marilyn Musgrave and Angie Paccione. The key difference between these two candidates is that we know Musgrave’s record as congresswoman, but we don’t yet know what Paccione might offer. Words are not a reliable measure of future actions.
Musgrave has stood by the president perhaps more than most Republican congresspersons. I like to call her George W. Bush’s handmaiden. So if you want to judge her, look at Bush’s record. Musgrave’s ignorant and deceptive stand on scientific, medical, environmental and public health issues should disqualify her for another term. From embryos to stem cells, from meat export to mad cow disease, she was just a “yes” woman for the president. We need fresh air in our Congress.
Ted Kramer, Fort Collins
…
We would like to thank Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave for her dedication and support to American families with her recent vote on the Marriage Protection Act, defending the sanctity of traditional marriage. We applaud her for her steadfastness on this contentious issue, which, as we have seen, can bring the wrath of the radical left against her re-election campaign. This goes to prove that we can always count on Rep. Musgrave for her continued support for the family no matter the cost. For reasons similar to this, she can count on our vote come November.
Dave and Deanna Ross, Peetz
Petition rights debated
We have a representative government for a reason, and that is so we can live our lives and let the government do its job. The petition amendment goes too far because it relaxes the rules of petitions, thus putting the people more in charge of creating laws and amendments. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to vote every year on issues when that is the job of the Colorado legislature to do.
Daniel Tscheschke, Centennial
…
My favorite ballot question is Amendment 38, the Petition Rights Amendment. We would gain the right to put issues on ballots at the local level. Now citizens can only do that at the state level and in home- rule cities. We are not allowed to petition questions onto county or special district elections.
When South Table Mountain was in danger of development, I and many others worked to keep South and North Table Mountains undeveloped and purchased by Jefferson County Open Space. We knew we would win at the city level because, with majority support plus the right to petition, we could prevent the city government from annexing the mountain, rezoning it, and giving subsidies for development. Our Achilles’ Heel was always possible rezoning by county commissioners. Fortunately, the commissioners were on our side, but two commissioners could have allowed any development on South Table Mountain. The damage would have been irreversible and could not have been undone by defeating them in the next election.
With Amendment 38, if two commissioners or any special district government made a poor decision, we could reverse it by petition. It makes special-district and county governments better represent citizens of their local areas.
Don Parker, Golden
…
The Colorado Wildlife Commission has serious concerns about Amendment 38. Because it purports to expand petition rights to all levels of government – including, conceivably, rule-making agencies like the Wildlife Commission – it may provide a mechanism to interfere with or completely disrupt ongoing wildlife management programs and regulatory activities of the Wildlife Commission.
For example, currently the Wildlife Commission implements big- game hunting seasons through regulation on an annual cycle based on current wildlife population surveys and harvest reports. At present, this information is developed and is available to the Wildlife Commission on a time frame that is quite compressed in nature – typically the Wildlife Commission receives population model results in the spring in just enough time to set license numbers, conduct its limited license draw and ensure provision of those licenses to the hunting public prior to the start of the fall big-game seasons.
Under the applicable time frames in Amendment 38, such regulations would not take effect 20 days after publication under the State Administrative Procedures Act, as is currently the law, but would require 91 days to take effect. In many instances, the Wildlife Commission does not have that additional time to spare.
Further, if a petition is actually filed challenging the regulations implementing the hunting season, the regulations could not take effect until after an election, which could conceivably mean there would be no hunting season that year or it would occur much later and be much shorter in duration than determined to be necessary for proper wildlife management by the Wildlife Commission.
Jeffrey A. Crawford, Chair, Colorado Wildlife Commission, Denver
…
I am a supporter of Amendment 38 and a strong supporter of citizen initiatives. Even though the U.S. Constitution permits citizens the right to petition, only 21 states allow them to do so. Business interests, politicians and their lobbyists oppose Amendment 38, saying it restricts representative government. The problem today is that they are the only ones represented by the best government money can buy. The will of the people is ignored. The only way for the voices of the people to be heard is through petitions. Our forefathers gave us this tool.
Opponents also cite jobs and property rights as a reason to oppose the amendment. These are smoke screens. They oppose the amendment because it threatens their privileged, well-oiled positions.
We as citizens can turn the power of government back into the hands of the people, where it belongs, by voting for Amendment 38.
W. Rodney McKinnon, Montrose
Post’s endorsement of Tancredo for 6th CD
Re: “Tancredo has an obligation,” Oct. 15 editorial endorsement.
Your endorsement of Tom Tancredo in Colorado’s 6th Congressional District is mind-boggling. About 2 inches away on the same page, you write in endorsing Democrat Ed Perlmutter in the 7th District: “Perlmutter would be a common-sense voice on immigration amid the cacophony of radicals in the U.S. House, where sensible voices are sorely needed.”
Now, let me get this straight. You endorse Perlmutter partially for the reasons stated, but endorse Tancredo, who is the ringleader of the “radicals in the U.S. House”? I don’t get it.
Bill Winter, the Democrat who is running against Tancredo, espouses the same approach to immigration that Perlmutter, the U.S. Senate and President Bush propose. Bill is also the full-service candidate, with sound ideas and programs on a host of issues, not just the single issue that consumes Tancredo to the point of “radicalism.”
As an attorney, teacher, coach and veteran of both the Navy and the Marines, Bill Winter is supremely qualified to represent the 6th CD, and his passion for public service and solving the state’s and country’s problems is unsurpassed. Winter doesn’t seek higher office or notoriety, just the satisfaction of making a difference.
Stan Davis, Lakewood
…
Ye gads! Do any of you on the Denver Post editorial board ever read your own newspaper? In Tom Tancredo, we have a congressman who has demonstrated no interest in any issue other than immigration, who has reneged on his promise to retire after four terms, who “noodles” about running for president, not because he thinks he could be, but because he wants to force other candidates to deal with the immigration issue. Yet the Post professes to believe he may become a more pragmatic part of the solution.
Forgive me for paraphrasing Eldridge Cleaver, but Tancredo is part of the problem, not the solution. This man has represented the most radical wing of the Republican Party, and his constancy makes the Bush White House appear far more moderate than it really is.
You say a number of good things about Tancredo’s opponent, Bill Winter. Considering what you have to say about Winter and the dreadful representation we of the 6th District of Colorado have had, why didn’t you endorse Winter? The 6th District deserves better.
Lawrence H Kaufman, Golden
…
Tom Tancredo is nothing if not consistent, and you’re hoping he’ll moderate his strident tone on immigration. A leopard doesn’t change its spots. (Don’t you watch “Dr. Phil”?) By your own admission, Bill Winter “takes a sensible middle ground on immigration,” and would bring to the office valuable experience as an educator and military veteran. I read through your endorsement several times. It repeatedly mentioned that Tancredo would need to change. He’s had his opportunity. It’s time to move forward.
Cynthia Diaz, Lone Tree
To have your comments printed in To the Point, please send letters of no more than 40 words to openforum@denverpost.com (no attachments, please) or 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202. Writers are limited to one letter per month.
TO REACH OPINION EDITORS
Phone: 303-820-1331; Fax: 303-820-1502; E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202 or PO Box 1709, Denver, 80201
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.
