Letters to the Editor

Climate change: Letters to the editor, May 10, 2019

Sheep on the drought-stricken property of Guy Milson, a farmer who says he has “come around” on climate change, in Goulburn, New South Wales, Australia, March 23, 2019. Climate change is ascendant as a political issue in Australia, putting pressure on the governing conservative coalition in its rural strongholds.
Sheep on the drought-stricken property of Guy Milson, a farmer who says he has “come around” on climate change, in Goulburn, New South Wales, Australia, March 23, 2019. Climate change is ascendant as a political issue in Australia, putting pressure on the governing conservative coalition in its rural strongholds. NYT

Thanking Congress for climate votes

I’m feeling grateful to three Republican members of Congress who joined Democrats to vote for the Climate Action Now Act (HR 9), which would prevent the administration from pulling out of the Paris climate accord. They are Reps. Elise Stefanik of New York, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Vern Buchanan of Florida. Having seen the suffering caused by sea level rise and more dangerous storms, they courageously put the welfare of their constituents above party politics.

Likewise, I appreciate Reps. Jim Costa and TJ Cox, who also voted for this resolution. They are paying attention to climate scientists and constituents who advise that addressing climate change now will save lives and cost far less than ignoring the problem.

Polls show that voters prefer candidates and politicians who reach across the aisle to work with members of other parties. Their ability to collaborate enables them to legislate more effective solutions than those resulting from the “my way or the highway” approach.

Let’s thank these legislators for working together for the common good.

Connie Young, Fresno

The main purpose of government

Thank you, Dr. Fogg, for standing up for what is right! Thanks to the UN, God is being removed out of everything.

The First Amendment has been misinterpreted ever since the Supreme Court’s massive power grab in the1947 Everson decision. The First Amendment’s guarantees were intended as a check on the power of government. They were never intended as a check on religion’s influence on the government. One of the strengths of our Constitution and the success that we have enjoyed as a country derives from our “unalienable rights” endowed by our Creator. The whole purpose of government is, according to the Declaration of Independence, “to secure these rights.” John Adams spoke of the special role that religion and morality play in the successful outworking of the Constitution’s provisions: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The more the courts cleanse our country of any trace of religion and morality, the further we travel from the hope of Jefferson’s best work, the Declaration of Independence, and toward his warning that: “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends …” change is necessary.

Sandy Torosian, Fresno

Here is how to save Social Security

They predict that social security will become insolvent in 2035. Automation is the culprit. Human workers are being displaced with robots, causing less Social Security tax contributions. The federal government has also borrowed money from the Social Security fund for many years to balance the budget. It is likely that some of that money has been used to bail-out corporations from bankruptcy. And the money has never been returned.

I believe that it’s only fair that every industry that is using robots to replace humans should be required to contribute part of those savings they are enjoying by not hiring humans to the Social Security trust fund to help keep the program solvent.

Also, Medicare is off-limits. It was not designed or intended to insure the entire nation, only retirees and workers who contribute to the plan.

The affordable health care program is the best well designed by the Obama administration to provide health insurance to the whole nation. I don’t believe that President Trump or Congress can design a better plan or even match the Obama health care plan.

Alex Rubalcava, Fresno

Drug ads all about the money

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar announced that drug companies must disclose their list prices of prescription drugs costing more than $35 dollars a month. Why do they advertise prescription drugs on television to began with? Anybody that can understand their pitch has to be an MD to understand everything good or bad.

I may be old fashioned but isn’t that why you see the doctor to began with? Six o'clock news (ABC), 30-minute program, 13 minutes of prescription drug commercials. Maybe it's because older people watch the news and that's their target. Just remember that some of these companies said pain pills we not addictive, but I never saw a commercial on television for them.

I also find that you might see a commercial for a prescription drug one week and a class action lawsuit the next. Point is, it’s all about the money.

Robert Hill, Madera Ranchos

xyxyxy

  Comments