DerryNews.com, Derry, New Hampshire

January 24, 2013

Letters to the editor


Derry News

---- — Obama’s nominees are poor choices

To the editor:

President Obama’s recent picks of Chuck Hagel for secretary of defense and John Kerry for secretary of state call into question Obama’s judgment and wisdom and his ability to lead this country.

Hagel opposed the successful troop surge in Iraq and he wants to prematurely pull troops out of Afghanistan. He believes in placating Communist Cuba and wants to negotiate with the terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah. Hagel is committed to negotiating with Iran on its nuclear development program. He wants to make dramatic cuts to our military, which will weaken our national security posture. Hagel will be in lockstep with Obama and will continue the policies of appeasement.

John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam War veteran with medals that Swift Boat commanders stated he did not deserve, will march to Obama’s tune of appeasement. Kerry, in congressional hearings, turned on his fellow Vietnam War veterans. He could be another apologist for the Obama administration.

As a former Navy enlisted man and officer I question the ability of the Obama/Hagel/Kerry threesome to lead this country from a position of strength in the world. I do not have confidence in the capabilities of these key individuals to promote our national security.

Donald A. Moskowitz

Londonderry

Shaheen provided help promptly

To the editor:

I recently had my first experience dealing with the Social Security office. I needed to change the address for an elderly cousin with Alzheimer’s disease for whom I serve as power of attorney.

Armed with all of my paperwork, I made three trips to the Manchester office, spent several hours, and then went home to wait the expected month for the change to be implemented. After allowing a couple of extra weeks, I followed up by telephone, left four messages, and received no return calls.

At this point, I called the office of Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and a staffer took my information and followed up for me. Within an hour, I received a return call with the information I was seeking. When this conversation generated a couple of new questions, I was told that they would follow up and my answers were again received within the hour.

Unfortunately, our federal bureaucracies are not as “customer oriented” or as “user friendly” as they could be.

Fortunately, Sen. Shaheen’s staff was incredibly helpful and efficient.

Robert Spiegelman

Londonderry

Democrats show true colors on taxes

To the editor:

Democrats have told so many lies about taxes and the fiscal cliff that they apparently felt compelled to extend, but not reduce, the Bush tax cuts on incomes below $400,000.

After 10 years of claiming that the Bush tax cuts were only for the rich (a lie), that they caused the deficit crisis (a lie), and that the Clinton tax rates were wonderful (fiction), why didn’t President Obama and other Democrats just let the Bush tax cuts expire and revert to the Clinton-era tax rates?

The answer is that reverting to the Clinton-era tax rates would significantly raise taxes on every middle and lower income person and shift the total tax burden from higher income people (under the Bush tax rates) to middle and lower income people — where it was with Clinton’s tax rates.

Paying significantly higher taxes would alert every middle and lower income person to fact that Democrats have been lying about the Bush tax cuts for 10 years.

However, extension of the modified Bush tax cuts means that every tax increase felt by any American earning less than $400,000 has been caused exclusively by President Obama and the Democrats.

Most working Americans will have a lower net income in January than in December because of President Obama and Democratic senators and congressmen. And, these tax increases are just the beginning of the pain. More is coming, caused by Democrats to reward their special interest groups.

Don Ewing

Meredith

Set aside emotion

in gun debate

To the editor:

Recently, Vice President Joe Biden gave his gun control recommendations to Obama, meaning we are not even close to ending this national discussion on guns that has been ravaging every media outlet for the last month.

I am not against rational, open-minded, logical discussions about protecting the freedoms of the gun owner while protecting the rights of American citizens who may potentially wish, which is duly their right, not to carry a firearm. I am tired of the discussion, which immediately following the Newtown massacre involved the emotional reaction to the murder of 20 young school children and seven adults. The emotional reaction is understandable, but not a basis for rational discussion.

Almost on cue, as America’s emotions stabilize and the process of forgetting begins, the gun lobby and their allies begin their campaign against gun control and present ideas that are potentially on the same emotional argument as the ones who imagine losing their own children in a massacre: gun owners fear losing their guns. For some of these people, the anger, hostility and hatred for those who even propose this option seem as they are as emotionally attached to their guns as America was emotionally connected to the loss at Newtown.

My letter is not to propose a solution, I have no idea what that solution is. I am neither pro-gun nor anti-gun; I see both sides to the issue. This said, I can no longer stand to watch one side cry that we are living in a gun-loving dystopia, one side fears if we ban guns we will enter a sort of gun-less dystopia. We live in a dystopia now, for many reasons, including the use of firearms. However, we have the means to rationally and logically identify some key problems with gun use in this nation, and prevent some shootings from occurring in the future.

Anyone who proposes either taking away all guns, nearly all guns, or keeping military-style weapons legal and unregulated for civilian use need to take a step back from the issue and imagine themselves in the shoes of the opposition. In my opinion, the idea of censoring media to reduce violence seen and heard by children is as un-American as repealing the Second Amendment itself.

It is imperative that we take this time to detach our emotions so we can speak with one another about this issue that is ever-growing and becoming more and more important with each passing year. Unfortunately, history shows that we will not detach our emotions; America will scream at its counterparts until they’re deaf and stand their ground until nothing gets done, and 20 more children die. This time it might be your child’s elementary school.

Brendan LeRoy

Derry