Unfettered Letters

Welcome to socialism

Do politicians read history? The causes and attempted cures for the Great Depression and today’s financial crisis are very similar. The causes of both were weak and poor banking practices and home foreclosures. The cures consist of throwing money at the problems.

Neither worked under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In 1937 we entered the “depression within the depression.” In 1940 the rate of unemployment was more than 15 percent. World War II saved the day.

We have bankruptcy laws. Use them. Give the economy a chance to cure itself.

Today’s approach will result in inflation and a massive tax increase for the middle class in 2010.

Welcome to socialism.

W. Waite Welker Jr.
Overland Park

I cannot understand why our lawmakers are rewarding incompetence and gambling and do not allow failing businesses to enter bankruptcy, just like any other U.S. company. Isn’t this S&L all over again?

Unfortunately, we have become a bankrupt, socialist society that relies on our government to take responsibility for our health, wealth, secondary education and even the raising of our children (just to name a few). We cannot afford to simply keep increasing taxes to pay for the entitlements of those who refuse to live within their means.

Life is about choices, and unfortunately we, as a society, are teaching our children that there are no negative consequences to those choices. Moreover, we are teaching them that if you want (not need) something badly enough, just put in on credit. No need to work hard and save. That may disqualify you from one of the thousands of entitlement programs offered by our generous representatives.

Paul Dawdy
Liberty

Socialism vs. freedom

Terri C. Hayes (3/8, Letters) says it's OK to call her a socialist. OK, Terri, you are a socialist. Terri wants the "freedom" for all Americans to have government-run health care and other government programs. Terri, freedom is the right to choose. There is no freedom in the government providing a single choice.

Socialism gives freedom to the government. Democracy gives freedom to the people. Be careful in choosing how you wish to be labeled. The two are not interchangeable and cannot intermingle. One is worth fighting for, and the other is not.

The two are opposites and always will be. One is a win for the people, the other a win for the government. Unfortunately, there is a growing number of people in our country like Terri who are not students of democracy or the great teachers of our past. They accept socialism as a solution.

Abraham Lincoln warned, "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."

Terri, do not confuse freedom for the government with freedom for the people. Freedom is easy to give up. It's getting it back that costs lives.

Brad Seitter
Overland Park

Call me a socialist

Don Russell (3/3, Letters) says that the easy life is sought by irresponsible, lazy do-nothings at the peril of entrepreneurs. Call me a socialist, but I think the government should step in and help me and others like me instead of greedy Wall Street tycoons and CEOs. The middle class is the backbone of this country, and they have gotten the short end of the stick for too long.

I have worked for the same company for 30 years, and over the past eight years I saw my salary stagnate, my medical insurance costs escalate while the coverage shrunk, my yearly increases (if I was lucky enough to get one) to be a fraction of the inflation rate and my office go from 75 people to seven.

So do I appreciate the freedoms this country has to offer? You bet! I appreciate the freedom for all Americans to have decent health care, good schools for their children, college costs that are reasonable and a good job so they can afford a nice house and buy good food.

If everyone paid their fair share of the tax burden, then no one would be unduly burdened. So go ahead, call me a socialist. I dare you.

Terri C. Hayes
Lenexa

Socialism or freedom?

Did you ever throw away something that you at one time prized? And later, when it was too late to retrieve that wonderful item, you felt total dismay and were irritated with yourself for being so short-sighted?

Those feelings will return in a couple or three short years once the government broadens its hold on socialism. That precious freedom that we all had, that the younger generations never appreciated because they didn’t earn it, will be gone. But it was always there, usually camouflaged in hard work, tempered with honesty and honed with integrity.

The easy life is being over-sought, even demanded, by people who feel that whatever was gained by determined entrepreneurs should be shared with irresponsible, lazy do-nothings. Lord, help us!

And, Lord, especially help those among us who seek entitlements at the cost of loss of freedom for our country. Guide them to see the truth and validity of the American way of life. It must be earned.

Don M. Russell
Independence

Stimulus a step toward socialism

The so-called “stimulus” bill President Obama signed is one more step toward the socialist regime he wants to establish. This bill will stimulate one thing — votes for Obama in 2012. It is basically a payback to all the liberal organizations that put him in the White House, organizations like ACORN and Planned Parenthood.

The package will make it harder on hardworking Americans so that more money can be handed out to President Obama’s friends. It puts us deeper and deeper into debt. What new jobs will this package create? Where is the money coming from? The construction projects will just make the construction company owners richer, not provide jobs for more Americans.

Mainline media members don’t dare question President Obama and the liberal Congress. May God have mercy on us.

Glen Averill
Olathe

Fighting ‘socialism’

Explain it to me. Is it socialism to lend money to a failing company and to expect diligence from that company to ensure repayment? Is it socialism for the new stockholders to force those failing businesses to change their previous ways of overcompensating their upper echelon for negative performances? Is it socialism for stockholders to step in and force them into reasonable compliance when they show disregard or incompetence in the process?

If so, are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, student loans, farm subsidies and the like also socialism? And if that is so, since the thought of socialism drives parents to weep for their children, shouldn’t we be taking to the streets in the form of some sort of social protest?

I mean, right after the “Jerry Springer” show.

Larry Leeds
Roeland Park

Science backs evolutionary theory

Jared Bartels (1/17, Letters, “Educational ideologies”) suggests “progressive ideology” is at the root of several educational problems: “moral relativism” being taught versus “character education,” the “self-esteem movement,” and the teaching of evolutionary theory “as scientific fact.”

I wonder how many teachers actually teach “moral relativism” or accept “two plus two equals five” as “a good answer.” I imagine Mr. Bartels’ concern is unfounded. But I do agree with him on one point: Teaching evolutionary theory as fact is incorrect. Students should understand that a scientific theory is not a fact but a well-tested concept that explains a wide range of observations.

Evolutionary theory is so fundamental to the life sciences that in 2009, the Year of Science, the nation is celebrating the 150th anniversary of its publication and Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday.

Evolutionary theory is not “progressive ideology,” Mr. Bartels. It’s science.

Liz Craig
Roeland Park

Educational ideologies

I could not agree more with Ellen Goodman’s recognition of the problem when ideology, not science, guides educational efforts (1/4, Opinion, “Abstinence-only sex ed fails another truth test”). She failed to mention, however, that in general, a progressive ideology guides such efforts.

For example, she might have mentioned the failure of teaching moral relativism in place of character education. Furthermore, she could have mentioned the disastrous failure of the self-esteem movement in which the empty praise of students replaced genuine opportunities to boost self-esteem (that is, by actually succeeding), or teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution to students as scientific fact.

She might have also mentioned the effort on the part of educational reformers to eliminate competition from the classroom, in spite of the failure of such efforts to pass the truth test.

Thank you, Ellen, for reminding us that educational efforts often fail because they are guided by ideology, not by sound research.

Jared Bartels
Lee’s Summit

You say ‘socialist’?

As a liberal I am offended by the snide misuse of the word “socialist” by Republicans. Socialism does not equate with theft, anarchy, or evil. Despite what Sarah Palin has said, there are socialist countries that function quite nicely and are occupied by contented and productive citizens.

Since Republicans are determined to use the term “socialist” with little regard for truth, it’s time that the Democrats found a term they could shout out equally irresponsibly whenever a conservative begins barking “socialist.” I believe I have exactly the right word.

There is a term for people who are zealously nationalistic and anti-intellectual and who falsely believe they are persecuted in their own land. They insist that they must rescue their country from moral decadence. They believe critics of the state can be denied basic human rights and that government and business should be flip sides of the same coin.

These same people are rabidly anti-communist, anti-socialist, anti-liberal and anti-gay. They believe government is incapable of error in wartime. They mistrust non Christians and immigrants, despise labor unions and, when not in power, claim to love their country but hate their government.

The term that best describes these folks is “fascist.”

Will FitzPatrick
Kansas City

‘Socialism’ and eminent domain

Aerik Knapp-Loomis (11/15, Letters) blames conservative politicians for doing nothing to stop eminent domain, which he calls a form of “socialism.”

It was the “socialist” members of the Supreme Court (John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer) who voted in June 2005 to allow local governments to force property owners to sell and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project’s success is not guaranteed.

Because of this decision — conservatives William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O’Connor voted against it — conservative politicians have been barred from doing anything to protect private property.

Thus, they need not forever hold their “hypocritical tongues.”

Rex Hargis
Shawnee