Letters to the editor
To the editor:
In response to Mr. Jeff Miller of Fremont, Calif. (Letter: “Take advantage of airport asset”): Mr. Miller, you write of flying your plane to visit your vacation home in South Lake Tahoe – how nice for you and your family. It seems that you believe it is our job as community members to make sure you and your family have a nice flight. If you chose to fly here instead of drive that is your decision. We should not have to subsidize your family vacation by paying over $600,000 a year for an underutilized airport.
You say as a community we should do this because you and your family have spent $100,000 here in the past eight years. That comes to $34.25 a day spent in our community on food for yourself, gifts for yourself, golf for yourself, etc. You must be a person that believes that we as a community, as citizens, live here for free.
You explain in your letter that if we as a community do not support you, and the airport, you will sell your house and take your $34.25 with you. I would like to take this time to thank you and your family for your most generous contributions to our community since 1997 and remind you there are many fine real estate offices here to choose from.
As a community member, and a homeowner who lives here, I commend the City Council for its decision. Our priorities as a community must be our residents.
P.S. Mr. Miller, I will be traveling to Fremont soon and will be spending money in restaurants and hotels. Can you tell me where I pick up my check from your community for my visit?
South Lake Tahoe
No point in immigration laws and border patrol
To the editor:
Arizona voters made it clear they take laws seriously even when the federal government does not.
Proposition 200 passed by a comfortable margin of 56 percent to 44 percent, showing both political parties are out of touch with ordinary citizens. Both tried to keep it from passing.
The initiative’s success, barring illegal immigrants from voting and receiving public benefits, has energized drives in Colorado, California and Georgia, to enact similar laws.
These true grassroots movements have no political, media or business elites as members. These elites will join ranks to oppose these measures.
They did in Arizona. Opposition: united labor, business, Republican and Democrat. The antis outspent the pros 2-to-1. They failed. Why?
Opponents knew why it would pass, but couldn’t admit the obvious, that people shouldn’t be rewarded for being here illegally. If government and employers treat them as if they’re legal, why have immigration laws and spend all that money patrolling our border?
All that the pro-illegal lobbies can do is wave the race flag.
Leftist activists reflexively label such laws “anti-immigrant” (not just anti-ILLEGAL immigrant) and “anti-Hispanic.” Both parties fear losing Hispanic votes if they support restrictive laws.
The border issue is not going away.
Many Hispanic voters seem as fed up with illegal immigration as Anglos are. Exit polling: Hispanics were nearly even: 47 percent in favor, 53 percent opposed.
Support was strongest among the working poor, who see illegals competing for their jobs and depressing their wages. Among those with family incomes of $15,000 or less, the margin in favor was 72 percent to 28 percent.
The people spoke plainly with Proposition 200, a protest that crossed lines of race and wealth. Will Washington at least try to hear what those border voters are trying to tell them?
Arizona’s a place where Washington’s failure to secure our borders has real, visible costs in poverty, crime and overwhelmed public services.
If the federal government cannot do its job, the woes that now afflict border states will only get worse and spread nationwide, like, um, they HAVE been getting for the LAST 10 years, already. How much is enough?
For 51 percent of us, a disappointing paper
To the editor:
Talk about the liberal press!! Are you guys serious? The paper on Nov. 4 was anything but balanced. For instance, the 94-year-old woman that you put on the front page of the paper that wanted to either die or go back to bed after told the election results, or the chairman of the El Dorado County Democratic Party who needed something mindless to restore his spirit. Then of course your bias headline “For much of the world a disappointing outcome.”
Well, I am sure Saddam Hussein wishes Bush would never had been elected president the first time.
At least you could have had one person saying something decent about Bush since if YOUR candidate would have been elected you would have had a party for him on every page. You could at least note that Mr. Bush helped abolish partial birth abortion (a third-trimester murder of a baby being born that some abortion doctors will say is necessary for the life of the mother, but no one can find one woman saved from the procedure, but you can find women that have had it done solely for elective reasons) that Kerry voted for and vowed to help reinstate it if elected president. Not to mention the fact that there are a lot of us out here that did vote for W! I am a Republican, I believe in small government, school vouchers, owning guns, tax cuts for everyone including the rich, restoring the family, and that all abortion is murder.
The 51 percent of us deserve part of the local paper too.
South Lake Tahoe
Democrat waxes poetic on election results
To the editor:
The presidential election is finally over. It’s as good a time as any time to get philosophical as far as the results go and, as a Democrat, here’s my contribution. This isn’t original with me but it pretty well expresses my feelings.
Somewhere in the past their was a long, hard fought campaign between a Republican and a Democrat (which the Republican won) and after it was all over the Democrat, waxing philosophical, said to his Republican opponent, “Well, now the election is over and we can let all the rancor pass. I will hug your elephant and you can kiss my donkey.”