Issue link: https://www.epageflip.net/i/441116
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 2014wasaninterestingyear both locally and beyond. There was the highlight of the Giants World Series victory, an im- probable event with a true hero, Madison Bumgarner; heroes seem an endangered species these days. And then there were some dismally dim lowlights. Our beloved Congress, de- spite the massive efforts by Doug LaMalfa, has been rated as the least productive in American history. And here we thought Congress didn't amount to much. I am not sure that if we join the State of Jefferson the quality of gov- ernment in Washington, DC will improve, but I am also sure there are those who will add this poor rating to the list of why we should take our ball and go home. Congress did do something pretty special, however. It as- sured that money will have an even bigger role in politics than before, or at least before the Dodd-Frank Act. Without even an embarrassing look at its shoes, it increased the amount individuals can give to politi- cal parties per year by 900%. Of course, this was a bipartisan act so we easily know whom to blame — all the blaggards. Like they say, follow the money. This spring the City Coun- cil embarrassed itself by studi- ously avoiding any serious talk of water conservation, with even the City Manager sort of shrugging his shoulders about the water problem. It is un- clear whether the Council or City Manager took time to look humbly at their shoes while es- sentially saying it was going through the motions. Perhaps it thought if it only went through the motions now no one would hold it against them when we join the State of Jefferson. The Council topped itself, however, in December. As you recall the Council did not want to waste $10,000 by holding an election to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Ray Eliggi for health reasons. I would not have liked to be the person responsible for tak- ing the minutes while the City Council looked foolish while trying to approve one of four candidates. After numerous it- erations of no more than two votes for three of the four can- didates, it finally settled on someone. If we paid them by the unsuccessful vote I could understand what happened, but we don't. Besides proving the wisdom of public elections, the Council's actions qualify as a $10,000 embarrassment. Meanwhile the initials NFL took on new meaning last year. A poll showed that only 50% of fathers wanted their sons to play football; this was apparently a new low. We wit- nessed "New Football Lows" last year. While the gladiators who beef up and suit up on Sundays may realize the physi- cal and cognitive damage they may be exposing themselves to for our entertainment, the public has become increas- ingly aware of personality dis- orders inherent in many who chose to participate in such a physical sport. Even the owner of the 49ers expressed dissat- isfaction at the off field behav- ior of "his" players. Of course, the term sport means different things to dif- ferent people. In some areas football has taken a more seri- ous turn. In Oklahoma a high school team took an official's decision to court to attempt to preserve its undefeated record. I have not seen the court re- cords, but I imagine the judge must have at least chuckled under his or her breath as the case was dismissed. Some would like to hold up college football as a last ves- tige of amateur sport. This year it became clear just what the sporting nature of col- lege football was. It is sporting in the sense of gambling offi- cially declared by the launch- ing of the new college football playoffs to crown a "true na- tional champion." It is hard to consider how wrapped up in the business of football many of our institutions of higher learning have become. Once again, follow the money. I read a great quote while flying from San Francisco to Milwaukee. "Facts are like a lamppost a drunkard uses to hold himself up." The quote was applied to politicians who can find a fact, just like the devil who quotes scripture, to support his point of view. We are all too familiar with such people. The fact of Ebola was used by many to scare us and to support those criticizing the President for not being a good hospital administrator. International politics pro- vided some free entertainment last year. Now we have a com- ical little man in North Korea who loves to share the spot light with more legitimate leaders. He is rattling his luxurious cage in the zoo of one of the saddest countries on Earth; he would be totally laughable were he not capable of some mischief. While Sony may have made some mis- takes in producing the movie "The Interview," Kim Jong-un, continues to look like a carica- ture of a pouty spoiled little boy. Another vile character came to the fore this year. Vladimir Putin is actually at least two inches shorter than the be- loved leader of North Korea; he compensates for his stature by being worth approximately $70 billion according to ex- perts. Pretty good for a com- munist. His shortness may or may not be the cause for his aggressive behavior, but he ap- parently is interested in saber rattling and on trying to re- construct the "evil empire" as Ronald Reagan would say. The spirit of Darth Vader lives on. Violence associated with law enforcement hit the headlines and stirred up a lot of ugliness; the issues of racial profiling, appropriate police responses to threats, standards for law enforcement self defense, and public safety are part of a com- plicated morass of assump- tions, simplifications, and bias. My hope is that in 2015 we can focus on healing the mess that erupted in 2014. Joe Harrop One view of 2014 Thankfulforresponseto flooding Editor: I would like to thank the sheriff's office and the inmates for their great job with the sand bag distribution. They not only filled the bags, they also loaded them into my vehicle. Everyone was polite and effi- cient and on such a cold wind- ing day it was very much appre- ciated. —GenevaHansen,RedBluff What are you willing to give up? Editor: In 2009, the nation was $11 trillion in debt. Today, it's an astounding $18 trillion. Califor- nia's debt, as best can be deter- mined, was $67 billion and has soared to $92 billion. Sadly, we seem too willing to pile more and more debt upon future generations to satisfy our own needs today. Unfortunately, elected offi- cials seem incapable of stopping the insanity. The corrosive ef- fect of special interest groups is too powerful to overcome. Senior citizens, teachers, business, unions, lawyers, bank- ers, farmers, military, ranchers, pharmaceuticals, and environ- mentalists, to name a few, all have fingers in the government cookie jar. Messing with these rice bowls can lead to political suicide and, no kidding, outright hostility. Crazy. On one hand, we blame politicians for not doing anything to solve our debt prob- lem and, on the other, criticize when they try. Perhaps it's time we looked to ourselves for the answer. An old saying suggests, "When you point a finger of blame at some- one, you have three fingers pointing right back at yourself." So, let's each identify one thing we're willing to give up. For starters, as a veteran, I'll give up veterans' homes. They're costly to operate, serve relatively few veterans, are not an earned entitlement and the same services available through MediCal. Dare I say, what are you will- ing to give up? — Pete Stiglich, Cottonwood Obamacare and Social Security solution Editor: Responding to my letter, Obamacare's a Ponzi scheme in the Red Bluff Daily News, David Janott argued, and I agree, it isn't realistic to ex- pect most citizens to avoid un- expected expenses and job losses, to diligently save for re- tirement, and to wisely invest their savings. That is, to accrue the $2,226,000 plus $111,300/ year. I argued they could theo- retically accrue investing their money instead of paying it to Obamacare and Social Secu- rity. However, that doesn't jus- tify the government and insur- ance industry embezzling all but a scant $31,704/year of this money — paid only upon retire- ment — and then keeping all the principle when the worker and spouse die. Such consti- tutes a Ponzi scheme. To avoid the catastrophic poverty many Americans en- dured before the establishment of Social Security, I believe compelling Americans to save is a good idea. However, doing it via Obamacare and Social Secu- rity is injurious and exploitive. The first way Obamacare and Social Security are injuri- ous and exploitive is that by in- stilling a false sense of security, these programs undermine tax- payer motivation to live healthy, become educated, work hard, and save independently for healthcare and retirement. Ac- cordingly, by the time people realize the programs are insuffi- cient, it could be too late to im- plement a backup plan. Another way Obamacare and Social Security are injurious and exploitive is that for their ambiguity, complexity, and alienation from taxpayer con- trol, both programs invite and sustain egregious mismanage- ment and embezzlement of ben- eficiary funds. That is, by the government, insurance compa- nies, hospitals, and other par- ties that administrate them. Few Americans likely under- stand time value of money, why hospital stays cost $10,000/day, or the extent to which these en- tities embezzle and waste their hard-earned money. Obamacare is also injurious and exploitive in that by soft- ening the blow of beneficiaries' medical expenses, it encourages physical, financial, and socially- destructive behaviors. These in- clude pregnancy, overeating, smoking, drinking, and drug abuse. Accordingly, affected beneficiaries are likely to per- sist in these behaviors, thereby influencing others to adopt them, too. The injurious and exploitive elements of both Obamacare and Social Security could be eliminated for interested tax- payers by allowing them to in- vest their contributions pri- vately. A likely popular invest- ment would be buying and renovating a home. Alterna- tively, a taxpayer could invest this money or use it to start a business. To prevent cata- strophic losses, taxpayers could be required to get a govern- ment-provided investment ex- pert's approval before spend- ing these monies. The amount a taxpayer was allowed to in- vest would initially be small but could be increased incremen- tally as he demonstrated invest- ing proficiency. Another idea for avoiding the injurious and exploitive ele- ments of Obamacare would be to set the maximum total bill for any healthcare the taxpayer re- ceives. That is, according to his income, medical condition, and what he can be reasonably ex- pected to pay over a ten-year pe- riod. That is, irrespective of any private insurance coverage he may have. Those not having, wanting, or able to get a job in the pri- vate sector to pay for their med- ical treatment could be guar- anteed employment in an ex- tremely versatile state-run work program. Those failing to make adequate progress in repay- ing their medical debt even this way would be barred from re- ceiving anything more than emergency medical treatment until their debt was paid. Modifying the Obamacare and Social Security programs in these ways could foster an un- precedented surge in personal income and national economic growth. That is, with an accom- panying plunge in the incidence of bankruptcy, unemployment, drug and alcohol abuse, and di- vorce. — Nathan Esplanade, Corning Your opinions Cartoonist's take Now that dust from the mid- terms has settled, thousands of politicians-elect are taking of- fice. In the predictably rough cli- mate of American politics, there is serious controversy. This time, though, the strife has nothing to do with Presi- dent Obama, Republican prima- ries, or lobbyists living up to our worst expectations. The argument is whether in- coming public officeholders should continue to be sworn with one hand on a bible, or if they should abandon the use of any religion's holy book in favor of something nonsectarian. On the left, activists believe that inclusion of religious texts in public ceremonies serves to disenfranchise secular Ameri- cans. From their perspective, re- ligious Americans in general, and Christians in particular, are given special preference. On the right we hear that swearing on a bible is integral to America's character as a Ju- deo-Christian nation. Forsak- ing this pastime would be a sign of moral weakness and spiritual impoverishment. Some would claim atheis- tic bigotry if tradition were cast aside. The choice of literature on which to recite an oath is deeply personal. It should depend on the person in question's value set and the signal he or she wishes to send America about these values. What anyone else thinks is unimportant. Someone gets elected; beliefs and all. His or her decision to be sworn in on this or that docu- ment is a matter of conscience. Snide remarks and crude gen- eralizations about the use of a bible (or lack thereof) are de- signed to create rancor and re- sentment, not encourage mean- ingful discussion. It would be much better to embrace reason. People today are not inclined to be reasonable. This proves es- pecially true when politics and religion enter the discussion. Generosity and rationality help us solve our problems and con- flicts, but it does not seem that most folks want solutions. No small number prefer to nurse grievances, feed martyr com- plexes, and ultimately fuel anger. Each of us think differently and see the world in various ways. The U.S. Constitution pro- tects our right not to have other people's beliefs forced upon us, but it doesn't prevent us from being exposed to them. We should focus on our own lives rather than worry about whether someone taking an oath is doing so in deference to a deity, several of them, or none at all. If you don't want the Bible used for swearing in a politician, win the office yourself and select Atlas Shrugged, the Avesta, the Declaration of Independence, or perhaps nothing. Possibili- ties continue well beyond the horizon. At any rate, we should leave each other to make such decisions for ourselves. Is mind- ing our own business really that perilous? The bottom line is that if our hypothetical politician is a seri- ous, born-again Christian, he or she will be sworn in on a Bible. If this individual is a disciple of Buddha or Voltaire, a completely different publication will suffice. The former will swear, "So help me God"; the latter will make a "solemn affirmation." Taking the oath with dedica- tion and honesty is what counts. When all is said and done, if a person sincerely commits to up- hold the duties of an office, what else matters? On that much we should all agree. Joseph Cotto is a historical and social journalist, and writes about politics, economics and social issues. Email him at joseph.f.cotto@gmail.com. Joseph Cotto Should politicians be sworn in on the Bible? OPINION » redbluffdailynews.com Saturday, January 3, 2015 » MORE AT FACEBOOK.COM/RBDAILYNEWS AND TWITTER.COM/REDBLUFFNEWS A4