LETTERS: Plan for, pay for the future; change a bad idea

Cars travel through the flooded intersection of 31st street and Highway 24 due to excessive rainfall across the area. Photo by Logan Riely, The Gazette

Plan for, pay for the future

It is time for Colorado Springs to grow up and stop living in Uncle Sam's basement! Almost every year recently, Colorado Springs has its hand out to the federal government for some kind of disaster relief.

At the same time, a significant majority of the public expresses it's disdain for the federal government.

Colorado Springs is acting like an immature teenager who is, on one hand, satisfied to take money from their parents and relatives and on the other hand resents the giver of that money.

By now, we should realize that hard rains and other disastrous events are not the exception, but the rule. Rather than ruing our misfortune, we must plan for and pay for our future.

To date, I have "heard ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken" (Bob Dylan quote) and I have "met another man who was wounded with hatred" (yes, you Douglas Bruce!)

We must grow up and take responsibility for our own realities because A Hard Rain IS A-Gonna Fall!

By some miracle, I believe we have elected a new mayor (John Suthers) and a new City Council President (Merv Bennett) along with a new progressive City Council who have the savvy to help Colorado Springs grow up to be a responsible adult.

Lee Milner

Colorado Springs

Return to local management

In response to the article "We should return fire to natural role in West", by Bryan Bird here is my view. First, anytime you hear the phrase from a government bureaucrat "to provide the Forest Service the funds it needs and direct that money be used effectively and efficiently", you should be highly suspect. There is nothing recorded that proves any government program performs effectively and efficiently.

Bird belongs to an activist group, the WildEarth Guardians. This group has used the courts to use litigation as a tool of intimidation, influence and policymaking. (Reference, Americans for Prosperity, article "Monkeywrenching the Courts: How One Green Group Games the System for Headlines and Profit". He is an embedded green activist in the U.S. Forest Service.

I respect the dedicated effort by all U.S. Forest Service workers as shepherds of our public lands. Yet, I tire of the mantra that throwing more money to a government entity will solve the problems that exist. Return control of our public lands to the states, and it is my view that localized management will meet stewardship responsibilities of our public lands.

Lynn Vorce

Florissant

When will we learn?

If I may, I'd like to add a few notes to Thomas Sowell's recent article ("Redistribution rhetoric rings hollow", May 19, The Gazette). The War on Poverty, a collection of several assistance programs redistributing taxpayer dollars to the poor, has been at work for 50 years and has spent nearly $22 trillion (in 2012 dollars) but the official poverty level remains almost exactly what it was in 1967 (approximately 14 percent).

Wouldn't you think that after 50 years and 22 trillion, with no real progress having been made, someone would realize that it's a failure? That merely transferring money from some citizens to others hasn't ended poverty? It's said that insanity is continually doing the same thing but expecting different results. When will we learn?

H. Wayne Hall

Colorado Springs

Hypocrisy in any color

The black leadership in Baltimore gives me the impression that if we convict the six police officers charged with a variety of offenses, the problems in their community will go away. How many of the looters and protesters have jobs? How many of the same people are getting government subsidies? How many have dropped out of school? Those police officers didn't destroy your neighborhood! Stop blaming others for your dismal condition.

I know a thing or two about protesting a wrongful situation. In the summer of 1965, I marched with and met Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on the south side of Chicago. We protested illegal gerrymandering by the Chicago School System. Dr. King would turn over in his grave if he heard (I'm sure he does now) some of nasty rhetoric coming from many leaders in the black community.

The leadership in the black community and in the Democratic Party is pathetic. The solution to the many problems in many black communities is the person in the mirror. The black community wants justice. What about the justice for the 200-plus businesses that were looted and destroyed? I am tired of hypocrisy in any color.

Roger W. Louden

Colorado Springs

Changing laws a bad idea

While I fully support the overhaul of our immigration laws, and applaud efforts to simplify legal procedures to encourage legal immigration and discourage illegal one, I have concerns and strong disagreements with the latest bills in the Congress. Specifically, I mean H.R.213 (Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2015), S. 153 (Immigration Innovation ("I-Squared") Act of 2015), and S.181 (Startup Act).

My main disagreement with these bills is the elimination of Per-Country limits on EB (employment-based) immigrant visas (EB-1, EB-2 and EB-3).

As someone who is a legal immigrant, who knows many legal immigrants, and who knows firsthand about all the challenges faced by immigrants in the U.S., I can unequivocally state that eliminating per-country limits is a very bad idea. Such elimination will favor very large countries of origin, while reduce or even eliminate opportunities for highly qualified high-tech immigrants in smaller countries of Europe and former Soviet Union.

Legal immigration requires a lot of paperwork and bureaucracy, which means a lot of fees and money for facilitators, such as immigration attorneys, nonprofit organizations, advocacy groups. Potential immigrants from larger countries of origin have a whole conveyor of people, organizations and services that are geared towards simplifying and accelerating their immigrants getting the employment-based visas. Meanwhile, smaller nations are at a clear disadvantage, lacking the same opportunities. That would deal a blow to diversity of the immigration pool - one of the core intents of the decades-long U.S. immigration laws - while solidifying the stranglehold of a few groups and organizations over high-tech immigrants and immigration process.

This is why I am opposed to such provisions in H.R. 213, S. 153 and S. 181.

Ramazan Deveci

Colorado Springs

Load comments