National change needed
Mr. Rainwater’s column (“The ‘Alt right?’,” Sequim Gazette, Sept. 13, page A-10) presented out the usual rich parties spiel for the glories of capitalism. It is a great system as long as you are rich.
A big tax cut will allow the drug and insurance companies to keep more of their money and create jobs. That fairy tale has been around since Reagan’s time.
If they create new jobs they will be in some country that allows slave labor. We live in the capitalist Eden they glorify, and know it takes three jobs to maintain an income above the poverty level for most workers.
We know that we need government subsidies to afford health care since the drug and insurance companies set their own prices. The proposed 10 percent tax cut means millions of dollars for the rich and a drop in the bucket for workers.
Once upon a time it took the strength of the federal government to send a rocket onto space, and now we have “capitalists” who have enough money to do it themselves. Has anyone seen a flurry of decent jobs opening up lately?
The rich use the word socialism as a boogie man to scare us of other countries that do a better job of caring for their citizens and that should be the primary job of a government. Since the rich can now afford their own congressmen, the new goal is to squeeze all they can out of the rest of us.
We need to change the system or our congressmen, from the bottom up. Otherwise, it will be like medieval times, with the rich cruising by in their Maseratis and tossing coins out of their windows to the masses.
Rainwater hits the mark
Matthew Rainwater’s Guest Opinion article in the Sept 13 paper (“The ‘Alt right?’,” Sequim Gazette, page A-10) is spot on. Namely (and paraphrasing), government is a necessary evil in which least is best.
While government-loving Democrats and liberals argue with this premise, they should recognize that their beloved and idealized utopia would neither have nor need any government! No wonder they’re confused and conflicted!
Gerald J. Stiles
Reconsider facts in Charlie Gard story
In response to the guest editorial by Matthew Rainwater in the Sept. 13 paper (“The ‘Alt right?’,” Sequim Gazette, page A-10); hopefully the following information will put a different interpretation on the writer’s conclusion that the English government “decided that he should die,” referring to the Charlie Gard situation.
The English doctors at no time stopped treating the child’s fatal congenital condition. They were not supportive of taking the child to the states for a possible experimental treatment that might have improved his condition to an unknown extent.
What they did do is arrange for a doctor from the states to examine the child. When that doctor concluded the experimental treatment would not help, the parents made the decision to allow their child to die peacefully. Cost effectiveness was not an issue all along.
Freedom of speech includes silence
In reference to “Stance on anthem shows great disrespect” (Letter to the Editor, Sequim Gazette, Sept. 13):
It is the prerogative under our First Amendment for anyone to remain seated during our National Anthem. To condemn all members of a team for the actions of a few is anathema to our democracy.
The assumption our Sequim School District does not have our national flag in all classrooms is erroneous. While presidential portraits are not on display, the Pledge of Allegiance is recited daily with the caveat to permit those who wish to remain silent to do so orderly.
That, like it or not, is what makes our country great!