Legal prostitution, pot
make sense everywhere
Regarding the Oct. 8 letter, "Legalize prostitution, pot in Atlantic City":
Why limit it to Atlantic City? If prostitution were regulated by the government, it would create thousands of jobs in the medical field, since workers would have to be tested regularly. Taxes would help balance budgets.
Legalizing and regulating marijuana would also produce jobs and tax revenue. We all know that tobacco and alcohol are far more dangerous than marijuana, yet they are legal and available.
We've spent billions of dollars on the war on drugs, including selling weapons to Mexican cartels who used them to kill a border patrol agent. Making marijuana legal makes more sense than that.
Spending in LEHT
is out of control
Regarding the Oct. 9 story, "Little Egg utilities chief is among top paid":
What is wrong with the people in my town? How can we pay the head of the Municipal Utilities Authority so much?
No wonder towns are going broke. This is absurd. And paying for a police officer who hasn't worked for two years is a waste of taxpayers' money.
No wonder the Township Committee holds its meetings so late in the evening so no one can attend and object. And now with the project to build a new bridge to Osborn Island starting, let's see what extra costs that will entail.
Do the right thing for residents. Cut costs and salaries.
Little Egg Harbor Township
An economic recovery
is never quick or easy
It's absurd to have expected President Barack Obama to pull us out of the recession in three and a half years. It took 15 years and World War II to end the Great Depression. Having lived through that, I can say we should be grateful to Obama for having helped avoid another depression. The Great Depression occurred under Herbert Hoover, who was a good businessman but who couldn't control the behavior of banks and the stock market using his business principles. Running a government whose goal is the welfare of its people is different from running a business whose goal is to make a profit.
We have a successful profit-making candidate running with the full support of the financial and corporate sector as well as the Supreme Court. Will it be payback time if he is elected? You bet. Will he favor a living wage for working (middle class) people? Hardly. He was a good businessman and the rules are keep wages and the number of American workers down and keep profits up.
Will he blow the top off the creeping recovery we're experiencing? He just might.
Romney Medicare plan
would destroy system
After the first presidential debate, it appears to me that Mitt Romney has already given up on Medicare as it is now and intends to institute a voucher system. Several times, he dodged direct questions on these vouchers.
Instead, he said that he would put back the $716 billion that President Barack Obama plans to cut from Medicare under the Affordable Care Act. He can't put it back, because that $716 billion is still in Medicare. The figure represents a savings, not a cost. Romney did not seem the least bit concerned with the savings to Medicare, the extension of its solvency and benefits to citizens - all to be lost if he is successful in his promise of repealing the Affordable Care Act.
The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Service, the agency that administers those programs, says Obamacare has saved $2.2 billion in Medicare funds since September 2011. This was accomplished by requiring that HMOs and insurance companies reduce costs by holding annual cost increases to 10 percent and by requiring that insurers spend at least 80 percent on health care and no more than 20 percent on administrative costs. (Compare Medicare's 3 percent overhead to the 30 percent average overhead of private insurers.)
Romney's approach would lessen the ability of Medicare and consumers to meet health care costs. But don't worry, he said in the debate. We don't intend to change Medicare if you are older than 55.
Does Romney really think we baby boomers and the members of the greatest generation are so selfish and shortsighted that we have no consideration for those younger than we are and future generations? He is counting on it.
should answer questions
I consider myself very fortunate to live in a great democracy, the United States of America. I thought it was the right of each citizen to be able to know all the facts during the pre-election process to be able to make an educated decision. One way to get all the facts is to have an opportunity to hear the candidates talk about issues together.
But here in Barnegat Township, two candidates running for Township Committee, Al Cirulli and Jeff Melchiondo, have refused to participate in two question-and-answer sessions sponsored by the League of Women Voters and the senior communities of Horizons at Barnegat and Mirage (all nonpartisan groups). The other candidates, Susan Conway and Elaine Taylor, have said they would attend these events.
Why don't candidates want the opportunity to answer questions such as: How would you lower the township's portion of our taxes? Is it because they've chosen affordable housing (more units than mandated) over affordable living? And higher taxes and wasteful spending ("free" used artificial turf that cost more than $600,000 to install) over common sense? What are they afraid of?
Here are our reasons
to vote for Obama
Regarding the Oct. 11 letter, "Time to face reality - Obama has failed":
We are voting for President Barack Obama for the following reasons:
His policies saved Wall Street. The Dow Jones fell below 7,000 points in 2009. It is now about 13,000 points. He rescued the automobile industry, saving more than a million jobs.
He signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. He gained passage of the Affordable Care Act.
He has ended the war in Iraq and under his leadership Osama Bin Laden was killed. In two years we will be leaving Afghanistan.
He is a strong supporter of the middle class and will preserve Social Security and Medicare.
Unemployment was 9.8 percent in September 2009 and is now 7.8 percent.
Are we better off now than four years ago? How can anyone deny it? There is certainly more work to be done, but the economy is coming back.
By his own words, Mitt Romney is very conservative, yet he changes his positions to appeal to whatever group he is addressing. He hides his money in offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes. If he is elected, the middle class can count on loosing the few tax deductions we have in order to help pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. And you can say goodbye to Social Security and Medicare as we know it.
We ask everyone to think carefully before voting. This election could change our country from one that cares for all citizens to one that only cares for the wealthiest.
Time for LoBiondo
to retire from Congress
U.S. Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-2nd, will lose his seat in Congress because he does not own it. He just acts as if he does.
In 1994, he promised that six terms would be his limit. After nine terms, let's help him keep that promise. Fortunately, his promising successor, Cassandra Shober, will fight energetically for our returning veterans, the unemployed, women fighting for equal pay and students burdened by mounting loans.
LoBiondo's arrogant, condescending refusal to debate Shober proves he is afraid she will expose his dismal voting record. He has reason to be afraid: Her intelligence, command of the issues and knowledge of his record are impressive.
Shober's well-run campaign is nipping at LoBiondo's heels in spite of his powerful advantages of incumbency and big money. She can close the gap with help from those of us who reject LoBiondo's anti-women voting record on reproductive health, his arrogant belief that he and other politicians, not scientists, should decide which types of stem cells should be made available to seek cures for Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, and his vote against equal pay for women.