Schenectady still spending way more money than it needs to
The assertion that Schenectady is in dire fiscal straits reflects a strange use of the term “dire.”
The city is still giving away police and fire services to nonprofits. In a world where your sexuality is a private matter, the city still spends money dealing with prostitution. And, of course, the city spends considerable money in its attempt to protect the booze industry by jailing its competitors in the drug industry.
My point acquires more relevance by noting the simple cost savings that are available but not taken.
What do you think would happen to the cost of social services if they were given only to those who tested negative for drugs or alcohol? What do you think would happen to the cost of education if parents had to pay the cost of dealing with the consequences of their failing to provide their children with the necessary social skills to fully benefit from the school community?
Strock was more on the money, than off it
Carl, say it ain’t so!
I am a little stunned by the news, but must be unselfish and realize you deserve the American dream of retirement.
Who will tell us of the ridiculous antics of our local politicians? I will admit I am not a dedicated “talker” of the goings-on in our government; depended too heavily on your commitment, I suppose.
It must be killing you this week with all the budget talks and the City Council sounding like greedy children. “Who knows what those volunteer Rose Garden people will do with the extra fees!”
And the county legislators, all that material and no one to “shine the light.” I did enjoy your travel stories, except the yucky eating habits of the area you were visiting. You do have an eye for detail.
On a serious note, I must admit that I, too, at times wondered about your mental health and occasionally thought one of the diagnoses that people so freely assigned you just might be true. There were a few times I shook my head and thought, what is he thinking?
But then I remembered you were an informer and entertainer, and you loved the shock value of your style of reporting; and so I would walk away with the information learned and be amazed by your “chutzpah.”
So goodbye, God bless (yes I’m a believer), and enjoy!
Tea party members are merely puppets of the rich
Yes, the health of our nation is at stake, but the Rx of the tea party is quack medicine. These pseudo-populists are in reality robots for the rich, and remain at their beck and call.
These are the same people who think global warming is a fraud, and evolution is not yet proven.
They have no new ideas or coherent plan, but insist that government must stop spending (36 percent of outlays are for FICA, Medicare, and retirement) — meaning that the middle class must sacrifice more to pay for tax cuts and super PACs for the wealthy.
They are egged on by terminal welfare phobics such as George Will, his blather parrots that of Charles (don’t confuse me with facts) Krauthammer, Rush Limbaugh, the moral deadbeats of Fox News, etc. — all 1 percenters who have no idea of life for the bottom half of the 99 percent.
A payroll tax of 6 percent on wages of $1 million (of which only the first $106,800 is taxable) does not have the same impact in terms of basic necessities as it has on wages of $20,000, regardless of income taxes.
Beyond this, the tea party has scored new lows for intolerance, hypocrisy and bigotry. How else to explain state voter suppression laws, and the despicable efforts to return women’s reproductive rights and health care back to the 1800s, and invoking states’ rights; all the while posing as champions of constitutional freedoms?
Well, “Mr. Tea Party Congressman,” you say you are “fighting to save Social Security and Medicare.” Fighting who? And for what? To turn them over to the same banks, brokers and crooks who brought us the recession?
If you really want to show leadership in the public interest, sponsor legislation to correct the abominable Citizens United decision that has sold our government to the highest bidders. I pay you to serve in Congress; my interests are not served by your Norquist pledge to never increase revenues (absurd), or deviate from the party line.
George W. Putman
‘Free’ stuff for women comes with steep price tag
Articles by Bethany Bump on Oct. 11 and 12, regarding Sandra Fluke, left out interesting comments.
At the Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology’s fall symposium, two panelists, Helen Alvare and Anna Franzonello, offered facts that put emphasis on women’s health, law and careers.
As Helen Alvare said, “Where are we after all these years with the pill?” Somewhere along the way to their careers, many have lost sight of women’s greatest gift of nurturing. More divorces, more children living in single-parent homes, and a bigger drain on all social services: Is this the goal?
The other presentations at that symposium focused on “what satisfies me.”
Careers and laws affect all of us. I am convinced that pouring more tax dollars into “free” contraceptives, “free” sterilizations or “free” abortions is destructive to our women, and in the long run, to our society.
The Gazette wants your opinions on public issues.
There is no strict word limit, though letters under 200 words are preferred.
All letters are subject to editing for length, style and fairness, and we will run no more than one letter per month from the same writer.
Please include your signature, address and day phone for verification.
For information on how to send, see bottom of this page.
For more letters, visit our website: www.dailygazette.com.