Letters to the Editor

Letters to editor: Dec. 16

Eliminating regulations would support individuals

If Democrats support the individual, then give everyone a chance to be successful. Each of us wants our children and ourselves to flourish. No limits. No ceiling. How un-American is a ceiling on achievement?

We struggle each day and dream our children will do better. We work hard and persevere through trials because this land is where opportunity awaits us. This is the American dream; the only limit to our potential is ourselves.

I am not resentful of those with more than I. We all want more. Our prosperity depends on a free society so we all have a chance. This land's triumphs and innovations come from people born into abject poverty or considered hopelessly disabled.

They rose above these challenges to reach the pinnacle of success, impossible in a land without individual freedom. Many of these entrepreneurs live in our own community. So work hard or get out of the way.

Our liberty is protected by the U.S. Constitution. This incredible document gives us the freedom to choose our own path and to succeed without the heavy hand of government regulations that force us down into an abyss of despair.

This document secures that we will not be oppressed by an aristocracy or tyrannical government. We brought this government into existence. It belongs to us. It is at our service.

Kentucky Democrats stand for the individual and the opportunity for all Americans to prosper — no limits. This is what makes us an exceptional country and, God willing, it will continue.

James Buckmaster


Joining forces

During a recent news program on the Occupy Wall Street protests the words "compromise" and "revolution" were repeatedly brought forth as the only possible descriptors of what the outcome would be. As I listened I wondered if that was true.

In conflicts such as these what limits us to these two words? The historical, semantic and emotional baggage that each term carries makes it difficult to advocate for either one. Revolution is the easier one to discount, as serious people would only support that in the most extreme of conditions.

Current political theater has so effectively demonized the concept of compromise that rational discussion of it is nearly impossible.

I would therefore like to humbly suggest a new word to help move us forward: Compromution. I would define it as radical compromise. The idea that, instead of endlessly hammering away at our known differences, we would actively seek out those aspects of an issue that we can agree on. We, and our political leaders, will be able to say to each other "I think you are wrong on X, but I agree with you on Y and Z, so let's take a look at those."

I am ready. Let's start the compromution.

Scott Land


OWS also has greed

There is much debate over what is at the heart of the Occupy Wall Street protests. The protesters and those supporting them will use words like equality and democracy. Those opposed will say things like liberalism and socialism.

Both are probably right to some degree, but the heart of the matter in my opinion is greed. Both sides of the debate are exhibiting it, but it is much easier to see from Wall Street than Main Street. The fact is, the Occupy Wall Street protesters won't live without most of the products and services the greedy corporations produce.

Whether perceived or real, the injustices the protesters are fighting against are in fact producing the lifestyle that they currently live or want to have. The cellphones being used to take pictures and post blogs about their experiences are all made in those "Chinese prison camps" that pay cheap labor and make the phone companies rich. The shirts on their backs are made the same way.

There really is no difference in those protesting and those supposedly causing them to protest. Both want the same thing; they just want to get it in a different way.

If you really are opposed to the system, then get out of it altogether. Before you say it is impossible, go and visit the nearest Amish community and find out what true protest to the system is really all about.

Michael Lawrence


Jobs creator?

The corporations that U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is so eager to help will do nothing but continue to downsize, cutting as many jobs as possible, to maximize profits for the wealthy, at the cost of anyone's health, happiness or well-being.

They hire the young and work them 60 to 80 hours a week until they are physically and emotionally exhausted. And then, when they near their retirement, they figure a way to usher them out the door, minus the retirement, and then repeat the vicious cycle again.

They also send jobs overseas while the corporate office remains stateside and reaps the generous tax breaks that McConnell so adamantly defends, or they hire temporary employees who receive no benefits and earn an hourly wage that they can't survive on.

McConnell helps keep these big corporations healthy so they can continue to suck the life out of more Americans and provide more phantom jobs.

I pray that some night when McConnell lies down and closes his eyes to sleep, he'll hear the cry of a small child who's hungry or has a bad tooth that hurts so badly he can't sleep — his parents knowing that there's not much hope of their senator doing anything to help secure any health benefits for them as he is much too busy making sure he and his wealthy friends enjoy the best.

I just hope he hears that cry, but I really don't think he will, because he doesn't care at all.

Danny Teater


In the debt driver's seat

Recently, President Barack Obama said, "Health care is the driver of our deficit and debt." Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress hold a different opinion. According to them, under-taxed citizens, all entitlements, bad weather and the Spanish-American War are the drivers.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. They themselves are the drivers of the deficit and debt, but they do not see.

The so-called super committee presented a vivid example of their flawed vision. Even if the 12 select politicians had achieved their goal, it would not have lowered our deficit and debt. In round numbers, they were instructed to cut spending by $1 trillion over 10 years while running a projected trillion-dollar deficit each of those years.

By my calculation, that would have amounted to one step forward and nine steps backward.

That solution to our deficit and debt problems makes good sense, but only when you consider the source.

America is lying in a critical-care unit fighting for her life and our politicians in Congress and the White House are willfully withholding the one sure and well-known cure: the application of simple honesty to all things great and small.

Shafter Bailey