I was stunned with the results of the election, and I’m losing faith in the American people.
The workers and providers of this country are becoming economic slaves to the government class (those getting paid by government) and those looking for handouts — and not enough of us realize this.
The principles that made America great — economic freedom and voluntary cooperation — haven’t changed, but continue to deteriorate under President Obama and are still being attacked by his administration.
We are very much now living in a regulatory dictatorship.
The election didn’t change the fact that the country continues heading in the wrong direction on that front — and that hurts job creation and the economy.
No problems were solved on election night. Obama has no real plan to get spending under control or unleash job creation in private industry.
Under Obama, the economy will not improve and in all likelihood will get worse. Obama’s policies have been proved by history not to work.
We can’t tax and spend our way to prosperity. There’s way too much money being printed, and the debt is unsustainable. It is just a matter of time.
Prices for every-day expenses will continue to go up — gas, food, electricity — and everyone will be squeezed. Taxes will go up, too, and all these additional expenses will hurt the economy.
It is too bad that so many are economically illiterate.
I fear Americans will have to learn true economic lessons the hard way, through economic hardship.
Our schools and the media must take a good deal of the blame for this.
Obama never faced tough questions and was allowed to get away with his lies about the economy and vilifying Mitt Romney as an evil person who had torn apart companies and shipped jobs overseas. All lies. Bain Capital was invited into failing companies and saved 85 percent of them, a far better record than any government program.
This campaign should have been about the big problems we are facing — jobs, the yearly deficits, the debt, or how Obamacare will bankrupt this nation or impose rationing. The entitlement programs — Social Security and Medicare (minus $716 billion cut) — needed to be addressed.
Illegal immigration, which is bankrupting the Western states, wasn’t mentioned. Government union contracts, which are bankrupting cities, weren’t given a thought.
Obama ran a divide-and-conquer campaign, and made the election about class warfare, contraceptives and race. Those issues were solved 40 years ago with President Johnson’s safety net, Roe v. Wade and the civil rights laws. But the liberals keep trotting out the same issues to scare people.
God help us all survive the coming four years.
After the election, give and take
The people have spoken, and President Obama has been re-elected. It is a relief to know that the “dark money” of super PACs that do not reveal the identity of their donors did not succeed, nor did lies, hate and racism.
Yes, it is time for bipartisanship, but this will be difficult because 235 House members and 41 senators have signed lobbyist Grover Norquist’s taxpayer pledge not to raise taxes. Will our representatives and senators have the courage to turn their backs on this nonelected power broker?
With the “fiscal cliff” looming in 2013, bipartisanship is essential if Congress is to avert the overwhelming consequences to our country.
Let the give-and-take between Speaker John Boehner and President Obama begin.
Celine E. Riedel
Aid to seniors at risk
Unless Congress takes action to stop a projected 8 percent to 9 percent across-the-board cut approved last year, all discretionary federally funded aging network programs will lose funding beginning Jan. 2, 2013.
These drastic cuts, referred to as “sequestration,” are a provision of the Budget Control Act that was passed to address the growing federal budget deficit.
One important discretionary program on the chopping block is the Older Americans Act. Ohio is projected to lose between $3 million and $4 million in funding that provides needed home-delivered meals, transportation, caregiver support and other community-based services.
For the Greater Cleveland area, this could mean up to $753,153 in funding cuts for vital services that help older family members and neighbors remain in their homes.
These across-the-board cuts, with no agency control on the impact to individual programs, would be devastating to social-service agencies and their clients. Congress needs to find a balanced approach between new revenue and spending cuts, and to recognize the value of programs that allow older Americans to age in place, avoiding high-cost Medicaid and Medicare services.
Only through balance can we minimize these budget cuts and put our nation on a sustainable fiscal path.
Georgia J. Anetzberger
Western Reserve Area Agency on Aging
Lacking in energy efficiency
I found Betty Lin-Fisher’s Nov. 14 story on the Sierra Club’s billboards about FirstEnergy very telling of the company’s position.(“Billboards critical of FirstEnergy”).
The company thinks it has been “targeted” unfairly, of course, because the billboards show dirty, polluting smokestacks — yet the fact is, FirstEnergy produces nearly all its profits making electricity from coal, with little regard to the effects on human health. It has fought mercury pollution rules for 20 years, and still works in backrooms to delay them.
Its spokesman also says the company is meeting goals to reduce pollution. Yeah, right, as it is lobbying the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio to reduce those goals and meeting with the governor to stack a new PUCO board.
According to state law, all FirstEnergy customers pay for any discounted or free products offered and associated “lost revenue” for the company from energy savings.
So these programs cost the company nothing, and can stop you from paying for the effects of climate change. It will cost over $30 billion to deal with Hurricane Sandy alone.
Billboards or not, the fact remains that FirstEnergy is the worst utility company in Ohio at meeting energy efficiency standards. That means more money out of my pocket, and yours.
Signs of the political times
The sign said, “America vs. Obama.” Well, my America supported President Obama. We reject the lies, fear-mongering and divisiveness implied by that sign.
Another sign said, “Obama and Brown equal $16 trillion in debt.” My America knows that the debt mostly began with Ronald Reagan and is the result of the “cut taxes and increase military spending” policy that started with Reagan.
In the past 30 years to 40 years, whenever a president has cut taxes and increased military spending, the result has been increased debt. This happened three times, under Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, who doubled, even tripled, the debt during their terms.
Obama’s debt is a continuation of the same policy, as Republicans refused to let the Bush tax cuts expire. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan supported a 20 percent tax cut and an increase in military spending.
My America knows that this policy has only blown up the debt when it was tried before. Why should we expect different results this time?
In response to the tea party sign, “Fiscal Responsibility or Fiscal Insanity, Let’s Vote on It,” we did. Fiscal Responsibility won, thank you.
Another sign said, “Brown Kills Jobs.” Not in my America, and if you don’t believe me, ask American auto workers.
Finally another sign said, “Brown (Obama) = War on Coal.” Not hardly. The real story on coal is that it is a dirty energy source that is being pushed out of the market by cleaner and cheaper natural gas.
My America understands these truths, and that is why we voted for Sen. Sherrod Brown and President Obama. We now have some work to do. First, we repair our infrastructure and put Americans back to work, and then we tackle the debt. Join us for some honest “fiscal responsibility.”
Charles Chlysta III
In the Nov. 19 letter headlined, “Question of affluence,” the writer noted that the more affluent communities in Summit County voted for Mitt Romney, whereas the less affluent ones voted for President Obama.
Then he wondered why the less affluent people voted Democratic, and not Republican, like the more affluent people did.
If you have to ask that question, then you probably voted for Romney and don’t belong to the 47 percent of the people he wrote off. Some of the rich people of this world have no clue how 47 percent of the people live.