God gave us liberals for two reasons: for comic relief and to be able to study brain damage without traveling to the nearest asylum. You assail the independent counsel law, a law that liberals loved for 20 years when Democrats controlled Congress and used the law to harass Republican administrations. When the Nixon, Reagan and Bush administrations were targets of these partisan witch hunts, we didn't read of your outrage. You hypocrites loved this law so long as it appeared that Democrats would control its implementation.
Did you ever complain of Walsh's seven-year, multi-million dollar vendetta?
Were you outraged as Ollie North's father was dragged before the grand jury as you were about Monica's mother? Were you outraged when Casper Weinberger was indicted on the Friday before the 1992 elections even though it was common knowledge he, along with George Schultz, were the most vehement opponents of the arms sales? Were you outraged when the Democratic speaker told us that even the most ludicrous of charges had to be investigated, such as that George Bush had been taken to the airport in the trunk of a car so he could fly to Iran to make a deal to keep Americans hostage until after the election? Were you outraged when Charles Colson was jailed for releasing a single FBI file? The only difference between this administration and Nixon were tape recordings and John Dean. Without them nothing could have been proven.
Tony Moschetti
High Point
News & Record
September 17, 1998
Thursday, September 17, 1998
Wednesday, July 08, 1998
Stop youth smoking; it prevents addicted adults
Tony Moschetti's letter mentioned that only 2 percent of cigarettes are consumed by teenagers (June 30). While this may be true, teenage smoking is much more important to the health of our citizens and to the tobacco industry than that percentage would imply. Ninety percent of smokers start to smoke before they reach 18. If a person does not start before 18, there will be little likelihood of that person becoming a smoker.
By preventing the 90 percent of smokers from becoming addicted to nicotine, one can eventually prevent 90 percent of the 400,000 deaths a year attributable to tobacco.
I agree that alcohol and drugs are problems that should not be ignored, and they cause the deaths of innocent people, but the total damage from tobacco is greater. Seventy percent of adult smokers want to quit, and if raising the price of cigarettes by a tax provides incentive to make many of them quit, that would be great.
The tobacco companies would not have achieved immunity from future lawsuits had the scuttled McCain Bill become law. With the revelations exposed by the recently released documents (discussed in Doug Campbell's article June 28) it is doubtful immunity from lawsuits will ever be provided to the tobacco companies by Congress.
I applaud the News & Record for printing that article, which provides a glimpse of how vulnerable the tobacco companies are, and why they sought the agreement with the states' attorneys general. How fortunate we are that Congress is so deliberate.
Richard J. Rosen
Greensboro
News & Record
July 8, 1998
By preventing the 90 percent of smokers from becoming addicted to nicotine, one can eventually prevent 90 percent of the 400,000 deaths a year attributable to tobacco.
I agree that alcohol and drugs are problems that should not be ignored, and they cause the deaths of innocent people, but the total damage from tobacco is greater. Seventy percent of adult smokers want to quit, and if raising the price of cigarettes by a tax provides incentive to make many of them quit, that would be great.
The tobacco companies would not have achieved immunity from future lawsuits had the scuttled McCain Bill become law. With the revelations exposed by the recently released documents (discussed in Doug Campbell's article June 28) it is doubtful immunity from lawsuits will ever be provided to the tobacco companies by Congress.
I applaud the News & Record for printing that article, which provides a glimpse of how vulnerable the tobacco companies are, and why they sought the agreement with the states' attorneys general. How fortunate we are that Congress is so deliberate.
Richard J. Rosen
Greensboro
News & Record
July 8, 1998
Tuesday, June 30, 1998
Bill wouldn't have stopped teen smoking
Your editorial concerning the tobacco bill shows once again your lack of understanding of nearly everything about which you comment. This bill is about hundreds of billions of dollars to fund spending programs, tax cuts, fill the pockets of the vultures known as personal injury lawyers, huge contributors to the Democrats and letting our beloved president claim a balanced budget.
Every state has laws prohibiting underage smoking. Teens account for approximately 2 percent of tobacco use. The Centers for Disease Control tell us that 34 percent of smokers are those who earn less than $ 15,000 annually. These who can least afford it will be hit the hardest by the miserable hypocrites who claim to be the benefactors of these very people. If the concern is teen smoking, why not a single word said, or single dollar spent on illegal drug or alcohol use, which cause the deaths of thousands of teenagers each year?
Politicians will reduce teenage smoking at the same rate they have reduced drug use, teen pregnancy, lowered cable bills, conserved water with the new useless toilets, saved children's lives with airbags and eliminated poverty.
Tony Moschetti
High Point
News & Record
June 30, 1998
Every state has laws prohibiting underage smoking. Teens account for approximately 2 percent of tobacco use. The Centers for Disease Control tell us that 34 percent of smokers are those who earn less than $ 15,000 annually. These who can least afford it will be hit the hardest by the miserable hypocrites who claim to be the benefactors of these very people. If the concern is teen smoking, why not a single word said, or single dollar spent on illegal drug or alcohol use, which cause the deaths of thousands of teenagers each year?
Politicians will reduce teenage smoking at the same rate they have reduced drug use, teen pregnancy, lowered cable bills, conserved water with the new useless toilets, saved children's lives with airbags and eliminated poverty.
Tony Moschetti
High Point
News & Record
June 30, 1998
Wednesday, June 10, 1998
High Point's council looks to cut budget
By Paul Muschick
Staff Writer
The High Point City Council is debating reducing its budget so it doesn't spend as much of the savings in its electric fund
City Manager Strib Boynton said he would have to cut two or three city jobs to trim the proposed 1998-99 budget by $ 150,000 as Mayor Becky Smothers and some council members asked him to do at a budget meeting Tuesday.
Smothers suggested slashing the overtime budget from $ 1.2 million to $ 1.1 million and cutting $ 50,000 in salaries.
Boynton said some salary could be saved by removing budgeted jobs that are unfilled, but he also likely would have to take it a step further.
''It would translate into another reduction in full-time positions,'' Boynton said.
The budget already provides for four fewer employees than last year's.
Council member Jim Stanley suggested even more drastic measures were necessary for High Point. He proposed cutting the $ 180.9 million budget by $ 700,000, so High Point wouldn't have to take as much from the electric reserve fund to balance the budget.
For years, High Point has used money from its electric bills to pay for other expenses. This year, Boynton proposes transferring $ 2.6 million from the electric account to pay for general expenses, although that would be decreased by $ 150,000 if the overtime and salary cuts are made.
Some citizens and council members have complained about the transfers, saying the extra money should stay in the electric fund to pay for system improvements and emergencies, so the council doesn't have to raise electric rates as it is proposing this year. The savings account will shrink to less than $ 1 million by next June, down from nearly $ 11 million in June 1997.
Boynton has suggested raising electric, water and sewer rates by 4 percent each. The combined utility bill for a family of four living in a $ 250,000 home would increase by about $ 1 a week to $ 1,314 a year, up from $ 1,263.
At a public hearing before Tuesday's budget discussions, four of the eight people who spoke out lambasted the council for raising the electric rates while borrowing from that fund. They accused the council of being too scared to raise taxes, but instead obtaining more money through taxpayers' electric bills.
The proposed budget keeps property taxes at 57 cents per $ 100 property value, the same as the last two years. That means the owner of a $ 100,000 home would pay $ 570.
But taxpayers at the public hearing said the electric fee is just a hidden tax hike.
''This is nothing more than a tax increase,'' said Tony Moschetti of Old Winston Road. ''I get an electric bill, I assume I'm paying for electric, water, sewer, etc. I didn't know I was paying for roads, police.''
Alan Johnson also said the council should just admit it's raising taxes.
''I think that is an underhanded way of doing it,'' Johnson said.
Stanley did not receive much support in his call to cut $ 700,000 from the budget, so that money could stay in the electric savings account.
Boynton asked the council where they would suggest saving that much, and their answers did not come near $ 700,000.
Beyond the widely agreed upon $ 150,000 in overtime and salary savings, some council members suggested delaying a $ 33,650 parking lot expansion for the library. Council member Arnold Koonce said perhaps the city could put off $ 110,000 in sidewalk repairs and construction. The other talks centered on line items of only a few thousand dollars.
The City Council will meet again at 3 p.m. Monday before its scheduled meeting to discuss the budget. The council tentatively is scheduled to vote on the budget at its June 18 meeting, but that could be delayed if drastic cuts need to be made. The budget must be adopted by July 1.
Boynton said that to cut large amounts of money, he would have to put off even more major projects. A much-needed third electric distribution site already has been delayed.
''It boils down the personnel side,'' Boynton said. ''Do you freeze salaries?''
Council member Ron Wilkins said he was against Boynton reducing the budget more. He said the budget already is too tight.
''I think asking him to look for more cuts would be unfair to our constituents,'' Wilkins said.
News & Record
June 10, 1998
Staff Writer
The High Point City Council is debating reducing its budget so it doesn't spend as much of the savings in its electric fund
City Manager Strib Boynton said he would have to cut two or three city jobs to trim the proposed 1998-99 budget by $ 150,000 as Mayor Becky Smothers and some council members asked him to do at a budget meeting Tuesday.
Smothers suggested slashing the overtime budget from $ 1.2 million to $ 1.1 million and cutting $ 50,000 in salaries.
Boynton said some salary could be saved by removing budgeted jobs that are unfilled, but he also likely would have to take it a step further.
''It would translate into another reduction in full-time positions,'' Boynton said.
The budget already provides for four fewer employees than last year's.
Council member Jim Stanley suggested even more drastic measures were necessary for High Point. He proposed cutting the $ 180.9 million budget by $ 700,000, so High Point wouldn't have to take as much from the electric reserve fund to balance the budget.
For years, High Point has used money from its electric bills to pay for other expenses. This year, Boynton proposes transferring $ 2.6 million from the electric account to pay for general expenses, although that would be decreased by $ 150,000 if the overtime and salary cuts are made.
Some citizens and council members have complained about the transfers, saying the extra money should stay in the electric fund to pay for system improvements and emergencies, so the council doesn't have to raise electric rates as it is proposing this year. The savings account will shrink to less than $ 1 million by next June, down from nearly $ 11 million in June 1997.
Boynton has suggested raising electric, water and sewer rates by 4 percent each. The combined utility bill for a family of four living in a $ 250,000 home would increase by about $ 1 a week to $ 1,314 a year, up from $ 1,263.
At a public hearing before Tuesday's budget discussions, four of the eight people who spoke out lambasted the council for raising the electric rates while borrowing from that fund. They accused the council of being too scared to raise taxes, but instead obtaining more money through taxpayers' electric bills.
The proposed budget keeps property taxes at 57 cents per $ 100 property value, the same as the last two years. That means the owner of a $ 100,000 home would pay $ 570.
But taxpayers at the public hearing said the electric fee is just a hidden tax hike.
''This is nothing more than a tax increase,'' said Tony Moschetti of Old Winston Road. ''I get an electric bill, I assume I'm paying for electric, water, sewer, etc. I didn't know I was paying for roads, police.''
Alan Johnson also said the council should just admit it's raising taxes.
''I think that is an underhanded way of doing it,'' Johnson said.
Stanley did not receive much support in his call to cut $ 700,000 from the budget, so that money could stay in the electric savings account.
Boynton asked the council where they would suggest saving that much, and their answers did not come near $ 700,000.
Beyond the widely agreed upon $ 150,000 in overtime and salary savings, some council members suggested delaying a $ 33,650 parking lot expansion for the library. Council member Arnold Koonce said perhaps the city could put off $ 110,000 in sidewalk repairs and construction. The other talks centered on line items of only a few thousand dollars.
The City Council will meet again at 3 p.m. Monday before its scheduled meeting to discuss the budget. The council tentatively is scheduled to vote on the budget at its June 18 meeting, but that could be delayed if drastic cuts need to be made. The budget must be adopted by July 1.
Boynton said that to cut large amounts of money, he would have to put off even more major projects. A much-needed third electric distribution site already has been delayed.
''It boils down the personnel side,'' Boynton said. ''Do you freeze salaries?''
Council member Ron Wilkins said he was against Boynton reducing the budget more. He said the budget already is too tight.
''I think asking him to look for more cuts would be unfair to our constituents,'' Wilkins said.
News & Record
June 10, 1998
Sunday, May 24, 1998
Bureaucrats don't need money; classrooms do
The News & Record, using the same distortions and half truths used to shill for millionaires during the recent baseball tax fiasco, has now come up with the term ''per pupil capital spending'' in an effort to convince us that we don't pay enough taxes and don't spend enough on education.
How about something called ''per pupil administrative spending.'' I'll wager we don't rank near the bottom in that category. We continue to pay more and more to fund a failed educational system. Based on almost every measurable achievement standard, we pay far too much, not too little. Where do we rank in total per pupil spending?
Not enough classrooms or books? Simple, take some of the money that goes to fund the sprawling, bloated bureaucracy that contributes little, if anything, to teach a child to read or write. I suspect that we do need more classrooms, much more so than bureaucrats. So instead of using our tax dollars to fund a jobs program for mostly useless bureaucrats, put the money into the classroom. Look at the number of bureaucrats in any religious school versus the public schools.
Look at the cost per pupil in each. Then compare results. How smart do you have to be to figure out the problem?
Tony Moschetti
High Point
News & Record
May 24, 1998
How about something called ''per pupil administrative spending.'' I'll wager we don't rank near the bottom in that category. We continue to pay more and more to fund a failed educational system. Based on almost every measurable achievement standard, we pay far too much, not too little. Where do we rank in total per pupil spending?
Not enough classrooms or books? Simple, take some of the money that goes to fund the sprawling, bloated bureaucracy that contributes little, if anything, to teach a child to read or write. I suspect that we do need more classrooms, much more so than bureaucrats. So instead of using our tax dollars to fund a jobs program for mostly useless bureaucrats, put the money into the classroom. Look at the number of bureaucrats in any religious school versus the public schools.
Look at the cost per pupil in each. Then compare results. How smart do you have to be to figure out the problem?
Tony Moschetti
High Point
News & Record
May 24, 1998
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)