Posted: Monday, October 20, 2008 12:00 am
Don't wait to fund senior center, parks
Several years ago, we bought our home at the outside limits of what we could afford, but we bit the bullet and did so. Had we waited, we would still be renting, as property values escalated far more than our income.
The same is true now for our much-needed park, Senior Center and Dial-A-Bus improvements. If we wait costs will only escalate. It is time to bite the bullet and vote yes on Measure 02-65.
Barbara Sackett, Corvallis
'Trickle down' viability dried up
When we invaded North America and began exploring the continent in earnest, we found what appeared to be unlimited resources of land, water, minerals, soil, timber and air. We have been depleting these resources ever since, as if they were truly unlimited and renewable; an illusion of paradise.
During this period of time, "trickle down" economics with little governmental regulation worked well, because there was enough for all. Gradually, however, resources became limited and more valuable, giving the opportunity to some who had wrested the most from our land to take advantage of the lack of regulation and begin to accumulate more than their share with some disregard to morality and to the middle class who had worked so hard for them.
The "trickle down" has been drastically decreased, but gradually, so that it took all this time to become part of public awareness. It still has political champions with dedicated followers.
The resources dictate how well off we will be in the future as they have in the past. If we can become a sustainable society, the future looks very promising; to the degree we resist sustainability the future looks less promising.
Jack Lyford, Corvallis
Voting remains the best option
Joel Stein ("Undecided? Don't Vote," Oct. 14 G-T) doesn't want you to vote. Mr. Stein says that voting is just a tool of the ruling class to pacify us. I'm about as politically jaded as you can get, and I mostly agree. I think voting in a two-party system is analogous to choosing Coke and Pepsi. Mr. Stein's points are intellectually lazy, irrational and full of logic gaps. If voting is like choosing a soft drink, choosing not to vote is not like choosing to drink water instead.
There ARE other parties to vote for. No, none them are likely to win. For better or for worse, third-party voting made a difference in getting Bill Clinton and George W. Bush elected. The ruling class is paying attention to this. I hate the Electoral College, but we don't just vote for presidents. We vote for senators, congressman, governors and many local offices and measures. Everyone's involved in the political process merely by our existence. Voting is not necessarily the solution but it's at least like chicken soup.
Mr. Stein offers no political solutions, just a stubborn, cry-baby sit-out that nobody will hear. Most people who don't vote are not making a statement like Mr. Stein, they are politically ignorant, disengaged and/or apathetic. Even though our representative republic is dysfunctional, it's all we got. Winston Churchill said, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
Don Boucher, Corvallis
On rights law, look at regional pattern
John Brenan's Oct. 14 letter misuses the statistics he quotes regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Mr Brenan is not lying nor is he inventing these data. Mr. Brenan presents these data as Democratic or liberal votes versus Republican or conservative votes. He either is attempting to further polarize the state of political affairs in the U.S., or he has not studied the data he quoted.
In 1964 the Democratic Party still controlled the "solid South," with 94 of the 104 House seats and 21 of the 22 Senate seats. Hardly any of those Democrats were "liberals" in the context presented by Mr. Brenan. The point herein, however, is that the voting breakdown is more appropriate when viewed as Northern versus Southern votes for or against the Act as opposed to Mr. Brenan's party-line accounting. In the House, 93 percent of Southern Democrats (87) and 100 percent of Southern Republicans (10) voted against the Act; 94 percent of Northern Democrats (145) and 85 percent of Northern Republicans (138) voted for the Act. In the Senate, 95 percent of Southern Democrats (20) and 100 percent of Southern Republicans (1) voted against the Act; 98 percent of Northern Democrats (45) and 84 percent of Northern Republicans (27) voted for the Act. Thus, a deeper analysis of these data actually presents a more interesting viewpoint than Mr. Brenan's analysis. The discussion pertinent to the 1964 Civil Right Act is more accurately one of regional-based racism and historical inertia than party politics.
Viewing party-based voting data of 64 years ago with today's polarized Republican and Democratic eyes adds weight to Benjamin Disraeli's statement there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.
Michael L'Heureux, Corvallis
Social Security won't ever run dry
Nancy Trejos ("Rethinking Retirement," Oct. 13) says "Social Security is in danger of running out of money."
This is not true.
Social Security can NEVER run out of money. It is funded by the payroll tax, which people will continue to pay as long as they understand that the payroll tax is the safest way they have to save their money for retirement. Their own money: Social Security is NOT welfare. Their money is protected from inflation by the government using a system called pay as you go with wage indexing, but it is NOT a "government expense."
In about 30 years, the people of that generation are predicted to be living longer than we are, and they will have to raise their own tax about 2 percent to pay for that longer life. That 2 percent will be about an extra 20 dollars per week out of an income that will be at least 300 dollars per week more than it is today.
The people who want to destroy Social Security don't want you to understand this. They want to scare you into letting them "fix" Social Security - by cutting benefits or raising the retirement age - which will mean that you won't be able to retire, even though you want to. Even though you paid for it yourself, or would have paid for it if you understood how little it cost.
Dale Coberly, Corvallis