Letters to the editor

Sustainable development unAmerican

A new phrase is beginning to appear in the news. It is "sustainable development."

On the surface, I would say this is great. However, in today's world words have lost their meaning and do not portray what you think they mean. Civic leaders hold meetings and outline visions for their towns, enforced by "consensus." Important people appear before Congressional committees and talk about the need for "free trade," "social justice," "global truth," etc. What does all this mean?

Orwell had it right when he realized whoever controlled language and manipulated key phrases could control policy.

What is "sustainable development?" The people who push this idea believe that society should be changed into a feudal-like government by making nature the main principle for our economy and society.

This policy has three components: Global land use, global education and global population control.

America is the only country in the world based on the idea of private property. This idea of "private property" is not agreeable with the premise of sustainable development. If you doubt this, here is a quote from the 1976 U.N. Habitat 1 Conference: "Land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice."

Sustainable development is just another word for Socialism, which brings me back to my statement that in today's world, words do not always mean what they infer.

Dick Ford


Welfare another word for Socialism

Welfare and subsidy as practice by a so-called compassionate government is Socialism.

Welfare, as practiced by people, churches and other groups, is true charity. When the people take care of the welfare they produce a greater bang for the buck.

Why do we need a small government? Maybe we should ask, how much government can we afford?

I can't understand why we can't see that the service industry can only be a percentage of the goods industry? Governments are not only a service industry but they are also a monopoly. As a service industry, they can only demand so much. Otherwise red ink will flow. Utilities were allowed to flourished as a monopoly because they could better serve the people. The public utility commissions were established to prevent the abuse of their monopoly power.

Just what is there that prevents the government from using their monopoly powers?

The Constitution was written to limit the powers of government. The Supreme Court was given the task to keep the other two branches of government from disobeying the Constitution. It seems the courts have defaulted on their duties to stop Congress from spending the country into bankruptcy.

I have often wondered why there are so many 5-to-4 decision of the SCOTUS? Is the Constitution written so vaguely the brightest minds don't understand it, or is it just plain ideology?

The Constitution states: "No money (property) shall be taken for public use without just compensation." Taxes (money) are collected to compensate those who serve as defined by the Constitution. But where is the compensation in welfare and subsidies?

Does anyone out there have an extra pair of rose colored glasses they could send to me? Maybe then I wouldn't feel that a $17 trillion debt and rising is no big deal or that government welfare and subsidy doesn't interfere with the good operation of the competitive free enterprise system.

Does the Constitution give the ideologues of D.C. the right to demand certain action, not approved by the majority of the public, that they think will make the citizen happy? (Obamacare).

Russell Errett