Letters to the editor
Highlands TodayFire them
Published: June 10, 2012
Published: June 10, 2012
This is in rebuttal to the letter published June 3, from Anthony D'Angelo, about Mitt Romney not having a clue about what it takes for the middle class to survive financially.
Michelle Obama, who supposedly came from humble beginnings, took a trip to Spain with 35 friends and relatives two years ago that cost taxpayers more than Mitt Romney makes in two years.
She has 10 assistants; our former First Ladies had two at most. The bottom five make $50,000 to $100,000 a year, and the top five make $100,000 to $152,000 a year.
Last year she traveled to Africa to talk to Nelson Mandela about infractions for children of Africa with her daughters and mother — like we don't have problems in our country with children.
Her garden is handled and maintained by our Forestry Department.
In the history of Communist Russia, the rulers appointed 20 czars to help them run the country. Since President Obama has been in office, he has appointed 42 czars, by Executive Order, and they don't answer to anyone but him or the Senate. Those czars make between $150,000 and $250,000 a year.
If he is capable to hold this office, why does he need those czars? Twenty-five percent of them have anti-American beliefs. He blames everything on George Bush, yet in the three years before taking office, he voted in favor of Bush's proposals 90 percent of the time.
Previous presidents had 33 to 59 percent of their administration who worked in the private sector, meaning they had real jobs like you and I; Obama's administration has only 8 percent that have ever had a real job, yet they are trying to tell large corporations how to run their businesses.
When Mitt Romney stated that he liked to fire people, he stated if he wasn't getting the services he was paying for, he'd fire them. We're not getting what we're paying for in Washington, why would we want to keep them?
Anybody but Romney
During the marathon Republican presidential primaries, when one unlikely after the other rose to the top of the popularity polls, the universal mantra of the party was "anybody but Romney."
Somehow this quite correct and insightful view for the selection of a candidate failed and now the party appears to be stuck with the candidate least in demand.
There is still the convention, but the money boys and their super PACs seem to have settled on this most pliant of men as their choice, seeing great possibilities in how easily he can be persuaded to change his position or hold no position at all depending on the direction the wind is blowing or whether there is any wind at all. Thus far his campaign has consisted of slogans and clichés, devoid of any real content.
Vaguely reminiscent of the office boy in Gilbert and Sullivan's "H.M.S. PINAFORE," he can be depended on to "always vote at his party's call and never thought to think for himself at all."
As long as Republicans of conscience can be seduced into electing the Koch brothers' chosen one, we are in for a lot of disappointment.