Should be ripe picking for employers

I am wondering when it was that middle age (translated as experienced) became a liability instead of an asset for gaining suitable employment commensurate with experience?

You would think that a person in their mid-40s with over 20 years of professional experience, a graduate degree and a plethora of usable skills would be ripe picking for any employer and bring considerable offerings to the table, but it seems that rather than those attributes being positive, they count against you, specifically age. Age is a decidedly delimiting and discriminating factor for potential employers.

Employers engage in age discrimination plain and simple. They can tell by your r?um?how old you are and use that against you. My question is why would employers want to hire young, inexperienced and socially inept novices instead of someone with the knowledge, expertise and social graces necessary for the job?

I'll tell you why, it's because in the age of outsourced labor, cheap labor, the government-mandated health care fiasco, and businesses being too cheap to pay, middle aged personnel and job seekers cost too much to be hired. Why should you have to take a lower paying or entry level job just to make ends meet? You can't even get hired for those positions because the employers know that you are way overqualified and will likely leave as soon as something better comes along. Those are the jobs that they should be hiring the young people for (except the jobs where they have to interact with people).

I say it's high time for businesses to ante up, stop the practice of going with the cheap labor because they are too cheap to pay qualified workers what they deserve even though they are rolling in profits, give employees the full-time hours they need, stop reducing work hours to part-time so they don't have to pay health benefits, and pay competitive wages or salaries.

Scott Martin, Colorado Springs


No problem finding investors

City for Champions is a great opportunity for the private sector to demonstrate what we've been hearing from the business community for years: That government is the problem, not the solution, and that private enterprise does best with the least amount of government involvement. If CforC is such a great wealth-builder, you will have no problem finding investors wanting a piece of the pie and will not need millions of dollars in public funding.

We remember what happened the last time the "business leaders" rammed through a project like this. Those opposed were anti-progress and anti-growth. So our city allowed strip mining along our beautiful Front Range. The business community promised it would look even better after the mining was done than when it started. And the jobs and the boost to the economy were without question! Instead, they declared bankruptcy, took the money and fled the state. We have lived with ugly scars on our mountains for 40-plus years as a result.

The taxpayers have no desire to be stuck with the bill for another boondoggle from the good old boys who stand to make out like bandits on this project. Let those who will profit put up the cash and stop spinning the pie-in-the-sky yarns about how much will trickle down to the rest of us. We all know what really trickles down.

John Jennings, Colorado Springs


Active-duty military on food stamps

"Generals Say Troops Understand Need For Pay Cuts." This was in bold letters March 26 on What is this saying about our military and its leaders? Our representative in Congress, Doug Lamborn, who sits on the House Armed Forces Committee and the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, frequently stands proudly in front of our flag and service members proclaiming that he is on the side of the troops, and is working for our veterans. But when those at the highest levels of the military who make five figures a month, come out and say that the "troops" are OK with paycuts, Lamborn is silent.

I haven't seen flag officers active or retired speak against this. I realize that it is election season and there is much focus on campaigning. However, as an enlisted vet, an active-duty spouse, and candidate for CD-5, I could not, in good conscience sit quietly. We have asked our troops to put their lives on the line in defense of this nation. The least we can do as a country is to keep their pay secure. There are many service members who receive welfare benefits. As long as we have active-duty military on food stamps, we should not even consider cutting their pay.

Leslie Simpson-Summey, Candidate CD-5, Colorado Springs


Strengthen penalties for soring

As an animal advocate and horse lover, I support the Prevent All Soring Tactics (PAST) Act, HR1518/S1406, which will reform the federal Horse Protection Act to end "soring" of walking horses: an abusive practice in which trainers pursue the artificial "Big Lick" gait by burning horses' legs with caustic chemicals, or wedging hard objects into the tender soles of their feet. These gentle horses are tortured for the sake of a blue ribbon at a horse show. It's disgusting, it's illegal, and it's well-documented that these actions persist throughout the Tennessee walking show horse industry.

The PAST Act will end the corrupt industry self-policing system, ban the use of devices associated with soring, and strengthen penalties to more effectively crackdown on this abuse. I'm proud that Colorado Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet have already signed on as co-sponsors to this legislation. I urge my Congressman Doug Lamborn to demonstrate his compassion for animals by joining our Senators in co-sponsoring this common-sense, anti-crime legislation that will not cost the government any additional money. Horses deserve protection from this senseless cruelty.

Peggy Bohn, Humane Society of the United States District Leader 5, Colorado Springs