Summit Daily letters: Socialism won’t solve our problems | SummitDaily.com

Summit Daily letters: Socialism won’t solve our problems

Socialism won't solve our problems

Why does the Summit Daily News continue to offer a half page of the same old worn out Keynesian socialism from Jonathan and Susan Knopf that the American voters rebuked last November? Their guest column tries to blame the health care problems in this country on successful businesses and its leaders instead of placing the blame on a failed government program of over regulation and Draconian mandates.

Instead of prolonging the politics of division, I wish the Knopfs and others on the left in Congress and in our community would roll up their sleeves and work together to solve our health care problems. We have a golden opportunity to have that nationwide bipartisan conversation that we were deprived of in 2009, if only Chuck Schumer and the Knopfs would agree to participate.

Kim McGahey

Summit County Republicans, Chairman

Supporting our immigrant community

Recommended Stories For You

Earlier this month, the Summit Daily News wrote about an event hosted by FIRC in support of the immigrant community. I am proud that my community is joining me in supporting immigrants and the many contributions they give to our country. This nation was founded by immigrants. Welcoming values have not only helped those seeking a better life in the United States, but have profited the country as well.

Immigrants are vital members of our economy and community. It is estimated there are half a million immigrants living in Colorado. Studies show they pay over $3 billion in taxes and hold a spending power of approximately $10 billion. They spur innovation and start businesses here. And, especially in our resort communities, they are an essential part of the workforce.

Our current immigration system has become outdated and is limiting our economic potential — Congress has not passed any major policy updates in decades. The system is broken. We need to modernize our visa system to entice the best and brightest to study and work here.

I also join many others in the belief that we need to provide a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented people who are living in our country. If Congress provides them with a way to get right with the law, the Department of Homeland Security can focus on real efforts to make the country safer, like deporting serious, violent criminals and securing our borders.

Most of our leaders in Colorado understand the need for immigration reform. I hope they can drive a bipartisan effort in Congress to modernize the system and find a permanent solution.

Joseph Moore

Breckenridge

Apples to oranges arguments

While it is easy to understand the extreme partisan argument made by the editorial from the Aurora Sentinel published in the Daily on March 27, the logic backing it up is an insult to the intelligence of any literate reader. The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion." This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion. The editorial claims that Gorsuch's rulings on the Tenth Circuit Court "allows the courts to protect the religious freedom of one citizen by denying the same rights of another." This is an apples and oranges argument. The religious rights of the Hobby Lobby workers were not denied.

The editorial uses a series of "what ifs" to support its argument that does not constitute a logical defense of a position. The editorial uses the assumption that no other services or alternatives would be available and seeks to inflame the reader by positing a series of very unlikely but horrible scenarios which totally support their partisan position. Based on the inflammatory nature of its arguments it is clear that the editorial seeks to stop a conservative judge from receiving a Supreme Court appointment purely on the basis of one ruling from a lower court.

The editorial continues by assuming that Gorsuch's ruling that a government can't impose a religion on a business translates into "but a business can impose its religion on anyone, no matter how far out of line the weirdness may be — as long as the convictions are genuine." I doubt that the Tenth Circuit Court written ruling pointed out "weirdness" of the Greens' faith in those terms. If a faith-based business does not wish to provide insurance that pays for birth control the assumption cannot be that this is the only alternative for workers there. Life is a series of personal decisions often built upon each individual's beliefs. Often those decision are heavily compromised. The question for the individual may be whether they can continue to work at Hobby Lobby, but still alternatives for insurance are available.

Paraphrasing Wikipedia: In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) The Supreme Court allowed closely held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a regulation its owners religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest, according to the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). It is the first time that the court has recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief. For such companies, the court's majority directly struck down the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act(ACA) requiring employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees, by a 5-4 vote.

Bob Phillipson

Breckenridge