Issue link: https://www.epageflip.net/i/398554
GregStevens,Publisher Chip Thompson, Editor EDITORIALBOARD How to have your say: Letters must be signed and provide the writer's home street address and home phone number. Anonymous letters, open letters to others, pen names and petition-style letters will not be allowed. Letters should be typed and no more than two double-spaced pages or 500words. When several letters address the same issue, a cross section will be published. Email: editor@red bluffdailynews.com Phone: 530-527- 2151ext. 112 Mail to: P.O. Box 220, 545 Diamond Ave., Red Bluff, CA 96080 Facebook: Leave comments at FACEBOOK.COM/ RBDAILYNEWS Twitter: Follow and send tweets to @REDBLUFFNEWS I'mstartingtofeelbadforPresidentObama, if you want to know the truth. His poll numbers are so low — an IBD/TIPP poll indicates that 53 percent of adults in the United States now characterize Obama's presidency as a "failure" — no Democrat candidates want to be seen with him. FormerCIAchiefandDe- fense Secretary Leon E. Pa- netta has been blasting Obama all week. Panetta, "long a trusted advisor to Democratic presidents, re- leased a book about his years in the administration in which he criticizes President Obama as a vacillating leader who of- ten 'avoids the battle,'" reports the Los Angeles Times. Just when you think things can't get worse for Obama, Jimmy Carter criticizes him. Carter says his foreign policy is wishy-washy. What will happen next? Obama's dog Bo will leak un- flattering stories to the Na- tional Inquirer? So it is chic all of a sudden for erstwhile supporters to criticize the president for one failure after another. Sure enough, Obama prom- ised hope and change. He promised to cross the politi- cal aisle and work with the op- position party — but has been one of the most polarizing and divisive presidents in my life- time. Sure, Obama promised to be more transparent than any president in history — but has been one of the most secre- tive in history. Don't ask me; ask the Society of Professional Journalists why it wrote a let- ter to the president, demand- ing the transparency he prom- ised. Sure, the Obama adminis- tration is bungling a number of things at home and abroad. ObamaCare has been messy and costly and continues to fall far short of its promises. And nobody is confident the president can correct huge foreign policy blunders when Obama tells Democrat sup- porters, "There's a sense possi- bly that the world is spinning so fast and nobody is able to control it." My only question to the president's growing number of critics is this: Where were you before Obama was elected — twice? Prior to Obama's first pres- idential election, I took the time to look into his record and accomplishments and was surprised to discover how pa- per-thin his resume was — for a presidential candidate, that is. Sure, he attended fine schools. But we know very lit- tle about what he thought, wrote or accomplished while he was there. He was a community orga- nizer, lawyer, university lec- turer and state senator, but there are no grand accom- plishments that stand out in any of these roles — at least not the kind that cause people to think "that young man is going to be president one day!" He began running for presi- dent one year into his term as junior senator of Illinois and rarely showed up to cast votes. That's like being hired as a di- rector of a company and im- mediately asking to become CEO. He had no experience run- ning a large organization — a modest record that showed he would cross the political aisle to get things done or ef- fectively organize executive teams to roll out big, success- ful programs. Nobody seemed to care, though. Because he was mas- terful at giving speeches. When people weren't fainting at campaign rallies, they were praising him as a great sav- ior who would solve America's many challenges. Unfortunately for everyone, however, Obama turned out to be a mere mortal. And now his support- ers complain that he doesn't much like the political process — rolling up his sleeves and working behind the scenes to get things done. To the con- trary, he's aloof and a bit of a loner, they say. So while it is suddenly chic to pile on and criticize the president's shortcomings as a leader and commander in chief, I think the new critics should back off. If you folks had examined what he promised to do before he was president — if you re- ally examined his experience and skills — you would not be terribly surprised by the out- come. Tom Purcell Obama critics too late, not too little Cartoonist's take According to Forbes maga- zine, at least 5,000 Americans contacted healthcare provid- ers fearful they had contracted Ebola after the media reported that someone with Ebola had entered the United States. All 5,000 cases turned out to be false alarms. In fact, despite all the hype about Ebola generated by the media and government officials, as of this writing there has only been one preliminarily identified case of someone con- tracting Ebola within the United States. Ebola is a dangerous disease, but it is very difficult to con- tract. Ebola spreads via direct contact with the virus. This usu- ally occurs though contact with bodily fluids. While the Ebola vi- rus may remain on dry surfaces for several hours, it can be de- stroyed by common disinfec- tants. So common-sense precau- tions should be able to prevent Ebola from spreading. It is no coincidence that many of those countries suffering from mass Ebola outbreaks have also suffered from the plagues of dictatorship and war. The dev- astation wrought by years of war has made it impossible for these countries to develop mod- ern healthcare infrastructure. For example, the 14-year civil war in Liberia left that coun- try with almost no trained doc- tors. Those who could leave the war-torn country were quick to depart. Sadly, American for- eign aid props up dictators and encourages militarism in these countries. President Obama's response to the Ebola crisis has been to send 3,000 troops to West Afri- can countries to help with treat- ment and containment. Obama did not bother to seek congres- sional authorization for this overseas military deployment. Nor did he bother to tell the American people how long the mission would last, how much it would cost, or what section of the Constitution authorizes him to send US troops on "humani- tarian" missions. The people of Liberia and other countries would be bet- ter off if the US government left them alone. Leave it to pri- vate citizens to invest in Afri- can business and trade with the African people. Private invest- ment and trade would help these countries develop thriving free- market economies capable of sustaining a modern healthcare infrastructure. Legitimate concerns about protecting airline passengers from those with Ebola or other infectious diseases can best be addressed by returning respon- sibility for passenger safety to the airlines. After all, private airlines have a greater incentive than does government to pro- tect their passengers from con- tagious diseases. They can do so while providing a safe means of travel for those seeking medical treatment in the United States. This would remove the incen- tive to lie about exposure to the virus among those seeking to come here for treatment. Ebola patients in the US have received permission from the Food and Drug Administra- tion to use "unapproved" drugs. This is a positive development. But why should those suffering from potentially lethal diseases have to seek special permis- sion from federal bureaucrats to use treatments their physicians think might help? And does any- one doubt that the FDA's cum- bersome approval process has slowed down the development of treatments for Ebola? Firestone Tire and Rub- ber Company has successfully contained the spread of Eb- ola among 80,000 people living in Harbel, the Liberian town housing employees of Fires- tone's Liberian plant and their families. In March, after the wife of a Firestone employee developed Ebola symptoms, Firestone constructed its own treatment center and imple- mented a program of quaran- tine and treatment. Firestone has successfully kept the Ebola virus from spreading among its employees. As of this writ- ing, there are only three Ebola patients at Firestone's treat- ment facility. Firestone's success in contain- ing Ebola shows that, far from justifying new state action, the Ebola crises demonstrates that individuals acting in the free market can do a better job of containing Ebola than can gov- ernments. The Ebola crisis is also another example of how US foreign aid harms the very peo- ple we are claiming to help. Lim- iting government at home and abroad is the best way to protect health and freedom. Ron Paul Liberty, not government, key to containing ebola Another view By Dick Polman More secret money is being pumped into politics than ever before. For that ignominious milestone, we can thank Su- preme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and his four Republi- can-appointed pals. Here's the kind of magic number that only fat cats and special interests could love: In the 2014 midterm election, ex- penditures by groups that don't disclose their donors has now surpassed $100 million. That's way more secret money (or "dark money," as it's more com- monly called) than has ever been spent on congressional races in any previous year at this point in the calendar. And the non-partisan Center for Re- sponsive Politics, which tallied the amount, says that we can probably expect dark donors to pony up another $100 million by election day. Virtually all of this dark money is spent on TV ads, the kind of ads sponsored by groups with amorphous names that provide no hint of their true partisan intent. In fact, as the The New York Times re- ported, after crunching the numbers, that 55 percent of all broadcast ads in the midterm season have been bankrolled by groups with secret donors. That dovetails with the new stats compiled by the Brennan Center, a think tank which says that more than half the outside- group spending in the nine key Senate races comes from dark donors. And the brunt of those bucks have been spent to help Republican candidates, by a ra- tio of four to one. Thanks a lot, Supreme Court. In a series of rulings that cul- minated in Citizens United, the five Republican appoin- tees — wedded to the notion that money is speech, have un- leashed the purchasing power of fat cats, corporations, and the special interest groups that cater to both. The result is that the average voter has no idea who's paying for politics and who stands to benefit. No wonder cynical Joe Citi- zen thinks the game is rigged. It is, to a greater degree than ever before. And because the dark money is mostly spent on negative TV ads, further fueling our polarized climate, candi- dates are well-motivated to re- main partisan once they take office. As public-interest activ- ist Robert Weissman lamented the other day, "How are they supposed to get along with the other side the day after the election?" Anthony Kennedy, who au- thored the Citizens United opin- ion, argued for "adequate dis- closure. With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures provide sharehold- ers and citizens with the infor- mation needed to hold corpo- rations and elected officials ac- countable...and see whether elected officials are in the pocket of so-called moneyed interests." (I love that qualifier, "so-called.") But clearly, these justices needed to get out more. Be- cause in the real world, there are all kinds of ways to hide the identities of donors. Under the tax code, you need only to or- ganize as a 501 (c) 4 "social wel- fare" group or a 501 (c) 6 trade association, and pledge not to spend most of your money on politics. Under those nonprofit designations, you don't have to reveal your donors. And as a bonus, you can spend most of your money on politics, because the supposedly fearful IRS rarely polices those pledges. For people like Karl Rove and the Koch brothers, this is a great deal. Lately, it's been an especially great deal for some- thing called the Kentucky Op- portunity Coalition. The KOC is one of those shadowy "so- cial welfare" groups, and its ap- parent sole purpose is to dump $7 million into ads attacking Mitch McConnell's Senate race opponent, Allison Grimes. That $7 million (which will likely go higher) is 28 percent of all the outside money that has flowed thus far into the Kentucky race. Until some distant day, when perhaps Congress can summon the wisdom to enact disclosure requirements (an effort that has failed twice already), or when perhaps a new court majority shelves the notion that money is speech, we all have to live with the consequences. Which is why dark money spending is expected to post a new record high in 2016 — and, in all likeli- hood, drive us to a new low. DickPolmanisthenational political columnist at News- Works/WHYY in Philadelphia (newsworks.org/polman). SCOTUS has screwed up politics But clearly, these justices needed to get out more. Because in the real world, there are all kinds of ways to hide the identities of donors. OPINION » redbluffdailynews.com Wednesday, October 15, 2014 » MORE AT FACEBOOK.COM/RBDAILYNEWS AND TWITTER.COM/REDBLUFFNEWS A6