You choose, we deliver
If you are interested in this story, you might be interested in others from The Journal Gazette. Go to and pick the subjects you care most about. We'll deliver your customized daily news report at 3 a.m. Fort Wayne time, right to your email.


  • Letters
    Goliath can be laid lowin 3rd District race Goliath was a giant with heavy armor. David was young with five stones.
  • Letters
    Goliath can be laid lowin 3rd District raceGoliath was a giant with heavy armor. David was young with five stones. Most believed Goliath would win the fight, but David did.
  • Pence overstepped with his CECI foray
    I was amused at the letter from Jackie Dowd and Claire Fiddian-Green (Oct. 6). They claim that not only did they meet the reversions requirement but exceeded it.

Letters to the editor


Romney/Ryan plan without compassion

As seniors, we have never witnessed such extremist political views by candidates as we have for the Nov. 6 election. This includes the Romney/Ryan ticket that espouses uncaring, even un-American, views toward the needy and the middle class. Our 46-year-old son has physical and mental disabilities, but he has a real zest for life and independence. This is true although he is unable to be gainfully employed. Our son has been on Medicare, which is his primary insurance, since 1992.

If the Romney/Ryan plan for Medicare were adopted, our son would be doomed with a $6,400 medical expense annually that could not be paid. This extra cost would also be true for seniors who, nationally, live on an average income of $23,000. The proposed budget would also eliminate between 14 million and 19 million needy individuals from Medicaid coverage. Medicaid is our son’s supplemental coverage to Medicare.

These extremist views indicate confusion about the biblical question, “Am I my brother’s keeper”? The correct answer is “yes.” Social Security and Medicare, for example, are programs in which we all pay taxes to help the needy and seniors, with our son being an example.

For candidates who display no compassion for “the least of these,” you have made our Election Day decision very easy.

MARVIN O. and LOIS ROSS Fort Wayne

Congressmen mislead via hollow threats

I would have to agree with Rep. Marlin Stutzman on the article “Medical device tax ‘a threat’ ” (Aug. 17). It is a threat. A threat mostly to insurance company profits.

Those who require the devices will pay a bit more for them out of pocket. It amounts to a sales tax. There is no way I believe Stryker Corp. of Kalamazoo, Mich., is laying 1,000 people off over this tax. I simply do not believe that due to this tax it has suspended building five more plants, considering the medical device maker doesn’t even pay such a tax. My guess is the CEO of Stryker is really interested in paying 0 percent in capital gains or lower corporate taxes, and this is yet another example of a businessperson trying to blame something on the other party so they get something else in return. It’s a cheap trick CEOs pull to help some party campaign.

If more people are insured, more people will get medical devices. Therefore, they should gain more off of this legislation than they might lose. Demand makes jobs. If there is demand, some company will meet it as they will profit.

I am also tired of these congressmen trying to point to tiny European countries as something to fear as well. They have nothing to do with us, and it’s just more fear mongering. I find it especially laughable considering this is a discussion on medicine and those countries he’s pointing to have full coverage for their citizens while we grapple with how to even do it in this country.

Misleading the public appears to be some congressional badge of honor anymore, and it needs to stop.


Politicians’ promises not worth the effort

A recent article about Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey being tapped as the keynote speaker for the Republican convention (“Jersey Comeback’s inopportune snag,” Aug. 21) pointed out one inconvenient truth about politicians and the promises they make during election campaigns. Unemployment in New Jersey is now at more than 9 percent. One must wonder how this can be if Christie is a member of the party that promises jobs for everyone.

If you watch the most recent Mike Pence ad, you can get a good idea of the rest of these promises because he doesn’t miss any of them.

He promises jobs – although a politician cannot deliver jobs. He promises to cut taxes – although a state cannot run without revenue. He promises to reduce regulation in the face of growing environmental problems, including the very obvious fact that we are facing global warming and recent droughts are merely a forewarning of what is to come. And he promises to increase education – although education is being cut further each year.

In short, his promises are the very substance of what every politician promises and has promised as far back as anyone can remember. They are called campaign promises because we all know, deep inside, that these promises cannot be kept, and politicians will say anything to get elected. And with a straight face.

Maybe this is the reason that two-thirds of us do not vote. We know we are being conned, so what’s the use? Right?


Wasteful government doesn’t deserve dollars

President Obama’s vision for the future is at best, uninspiring, more taxes being raised on the upper 1 percent of the American taxpayers to help pay for more infrastructure, teachers, firefighters and police. His solution is more government; more government; more government.

Obama says if we do not increase taxes on the upper 1 percent, it will be a $1 trillion “giveaway” over the next 10 years.

This is Orwellian doublespeak: How will you give away something that is not in your possession? What Obama should be calling it is a $1 trillion “take-way” from the American taxpayers.

Then Obama says if we do not get this tax increase, it will be the middle class that will have to pay this deficit of $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

What he means is the government will borrow more money from China and the debt will be put on the backs of middle-class Americans.

I have more confidence in the $1 trillion giveaway staying with the private sector where it has a better chance of producing more jobs with business than being wasted by the government.

Obama’s vision for the future is to keep spending record deficits, not have a balanced budget, not relieve regulations on the private sector of the economy, and not have a viable independent energy policy for this country.

Obama wants a weaker America and a large central government that they control.


Phone setup shows poor foresight

I find Benjamin Lanka’s article about the 911 communications center (“911 center will need phone system,” Aug. 22) a glaring testament to government’s inefficiency and lack of understanding for the intelligent use of the taxpayers’ money. Why plan a $17 million project without determining whether a new phone system is required? And why does anyone develop such an expensive project if they don’t include a place to put it?

How could any business work this way and stay afloat – of course, they wouldn’t. But don’t worry, it’s just the taxpayers’ money. They have deep pockets. If planners did this in industry, they would not have their jobs very long.

And, while I’m thinking about it – how much did we pay these planners to be this inefficient? This project just reeks of the political process of letting project costs balloon out of control. And politicians wonder why we citizens have so little faith in our government


Charges unworthy of reaching the page

Anyone interested in logical fallacies should read Ed Muhler’s letter (“Drones effective fighting tool”) which, for some obscure reason, the increasingly inept editorial page staff chose to print Aug. 10.

A bit of background: On July 27 The Journal Gazette printed a letter from Dave Lambert regarding President Obama’s increasing use of drones to carry out attacks around the world in countries where no formal state of war has been declared. He noted problems with this approach, but he omitted the most obvious one: The use of American drones in attacks that inflict civilian casualties in Muslim countries increases rather than decreases threats to American security and safety.

Perfectly illustrating the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem, Muhler’s letter fails to address any of the points Lambert raised. Instead, he defames Lambert, stating: “He sounds like a spokesman for the terrorists.” And: “It sounds as if Lambert is more concerned about our enemies than the men and women defending our country.”

These statements are despicable. Shame on the editorial page for broadcasting them.

I don’t really care why Muhler wrote his letter. But I am increasingly concerned with the abandonment of journalistic standards exhibited by the editorial page when they publish letters like this.

Please try to do better.


Reasoned analysis on gun legislation

Bob Aldridge’s recent column (“Call for gun restrictions ignores facts,” Aug. 20) presents facts that refute the argument for more gun control to prevent the terrible violence in the news.

It is great that we have a reasonable voice in the area who can articulate this subject in a knowledgeable way rather than rely on hysteria as so many do.

WILLIAM COOK Leo-Cedarville

20th century thinking keeps county mired

I would like to commend Frank Gray for an objective overview of the Richey Lane road-widening controversy (“Rural, tree-lined lane subject to expansion – maybe,” Aug. 19). There are two sides to every story, surely, but what distresses me the most is the comment by the attorney for the development in regard to how developers work with the county –this is how it has been for 50 years. So condescending and disturbing.

To the commissioners I am led to ask, “Don’t you think it is the time now and good management to take a look at a more equitable approach to land development?” What is so difficult about including existing homeowners in the plans that significantly alter their neighborhood and lifestyle?

And a final question: Do we have a commissioner who will step up to the table and lead a discussion group about a 21st century way of doing business with the public?

Any bets?