Subscriber login

Letters to the Editor
What you need to know for 07/27/2017

Letters to the editor for Sept. 10

Letters to the editor for Sept. 10

  • State should eliminate lowest levels of municipal government
  • Japan no less barbaric an ene
  • State should eliminate lowest levels of municipal government

    When will the New York state consider a serious overhaul of local government?

    In Andrew Cuomo’s first two years as governor, he has attempted to reduce wasteful spending by state government.

    The governor’s actions are commendable, but now the time has come to continue governmental reduction by phasing out municipal governments that have outlived their usefulness.

    Municipal government is an unnecessarily expensive middleman between the state and the people. New York’s citizens pay taxes for municipal services that could just as easily be supplied by the county or state government, instead of the municipal government.

    These services include waste removal, snow removal, local police and highway maintenance, to name a few of the dozens of services that are shared by county, municipal and state governments.

    The time is fast approaching when the state as a whole should consider making county government the lowest level of government.

    This would result in less bureaucratic red tape, as well as a path toward the reduction of unnecessary government.

    This would place a higher burden on the state government, but the state government’s bloated bureaucracy should be able to pick up the slack as municipal government services are phased out.

    Gov. Cuomo has given New York a start, now he must continue to trim government waste in a manner that makes government an asset, instead of a burden, to the people.

    Thomas Hartnett Jr.

    Schenectady

    Japan no less barbaric an enemy in war than U.S.

    In his Aug. 28 letter [“Japan targeted U.S. military base; U.S. hit Japanese cities”] Christian Scharl implies the United States was “barbarous” when it decided to bomb Japanese cities and their civilian population during WWII, ultimately bringing to an end one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history. Several of my family members were directly involved in that war, but are no longer alive to respond to Mr. Scharl and many others who share his view.

    War is indeed barbaric at its core and the civilian population often falls victim to the barbarity. There were countless examples of this in WWII. My aforementioned family members never once mentioned glory or chivalry when describing their experiences in the conflict; to the contrary they said it was an awful affair.

    What I found to be incredibly naive, and/or ignorant, was Mr. Scharl’s contention that the Japanese Imperial Armed forces attacked military bases and targets only, and not civilian targets, as if to imply they took the “high road” on their war path that began many years before Pearl Harbor — throughout Asia and most infamously in China.

    In one Chinese city, Nanking, the Imperial Japanese forces killed and raped over 100,000 Chinese women, men, and children.

    Mr. Scharl is correct when saying the Japanese forces did not attack American civilian targets. That is because they couldn’t; they did not have long-range strategic bombers, and their naval forces did not have the range or ability to reach our shores in force. If they could have, they would have. They did try to attack civilian centers, sending long-range air balloons with incendiary devices attached to them, in an attempt to fire-bomb the U.S. West coast. Fortunately most of them failed to reach their target.

    If you want to get a factually correct account of how the Imperial Japanese operated I would suggest you read “Fly Boys” by James Bradley. It is a brutally honest account of the events leading up to and after Pearl Harbor, including the Sino Japanese War. It also gives a very accurate and brutal account of the American bombing campaign against Japanese cities, including Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Mr. Scharl’s accounts were incomplete, to say the least.

    Daniel Casey

    Ballston Spa

    Romneycare was bad, but not as bad as Obamacare

    What is the difference between Romneycare and Obamacare?

    One was properly legislated into law on an appropriate state level to serve a fairly intelligent (though gullible) populace who embraced the idea, at least at first. It was never challenged in court.

    The other was legislated on a federal level, Soviet-style, complete with bribes, imaginary projections and intimidation. It was approved in the dead of night and inflicted on an unwilling, hostile citizenry who will ultimately refuse to comply.

    Obamacare was immediately challenged in court by more than half of the 50 states and was upheld by one of the worst and most contrived decisions in Supreme Court history.

    It is time for the people to take back the country from the corrupt Democrats who have hijacked our government. By any means necessary.

    Mike Blyskal

    Charlton

    View Comments
    Hide Comments
    0 premium 1 premium 2 premium 3 premium 4 premium 5 premium 6 premium 7 premium article articles remaining SUBSCRIBE TODAY

    You have reached your monthly premium content limit.

    Continue to enjoy Daily Gazette premium content by becoming a subscriber.
    Already a subscriber? Log In