A coward's way out
The current state budget proposals are balancing the budget on the backs of young children and working families. Under current consideration is a proposal that cuts $169 million from the Department of Human Services budget. The proposed cuts would eliminate the program that helps low-income parents pay for childcare. Without subsidies, low-income workers will be faced with the untenable choice between not working and leaving their children in unlicensed/unregulated care or even alone.
Other cuts include slashing the number of foster care workers and DHS staff who directly provide services to residents when they've lost their jobs, need help getting health care through Medicaid or assistance paying their electricity bills.
The safety net is expensive and all ways to create efficiencies should be looked at. But balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and young children is a coward's way out. It's time to look for revenue sources to make sure we maintain an adequate level of funding that does not leave our children and our future in so much peril.
Mary Sue Wilkinson
Brethren
Visibility programs at risk
Because of projected budget cuts in Lansing, important programs that help those with disabilities are at risk. And while we should all be troubled that our state unemployment rate is currently at 15 percent, we should keep in mind that the unemployment rate for those with severe vision loss consistently hovers around 80 percent.
Many seniors also lose their vision later in life, and it is important that they are able to live as independently as possible in their own homes, avoiding the expensive alternative of needing Medicaid support.
It is clear that lawmakers have many difficult decisions to make, but cuts should not be made at the expense of at-risk populations. The quality of life for those with disabilities is an important indicator of the overall quality of life in the state.
Gail L. McEntee
Detroit
The writer is president and chief operating officer of the Greater Detroit Agency for the Blind and Visually Impaired.
'Sorry' would suffice
Thanks to the Record-Eagle for the Sept. 27 story about layoffs at Cherry Blossom. Finally, former employees are able to tell how they really feel about the practices of Cherry Blossom LLC.
I'm sending a huge "thumbs-up" to those who spoke out. I wish the owner, Chris Hubbell, would give his former employees the respect they deserve (and have always deserved, but never got) and stop acting like he is the victim in this situation he helped to create. We (the former employees) have never gotten so much as a simple apology for the bounced payroll checks, the layoffs, the money taken from our checks (health insurance, child support) but not used properly. All we've gotten is a "it's not my fault."
A simple "I'm sorry for screwing you over and stealing money out of your families' pockets" would suffice.
Kristina Piatt
South Boardman
Demand correct answers
The Grand Traverse County septage treatment plant has been a series of debacles since its construction in 2004. Just "Google" Grand Traverse Septage Plant to review several articles of problems and negative business practices regarding the plant.
To fix the problem the county's Board of Public Works has recommended that all septic tank owners pay a $40 annual tax plus an additional 12 cents per gallon to dump waste. Is this based on the $3.4 million shortfall for 2014 according to the a Nov. 11, 2008, article in the Record-Eagle or the last article of Sept. 20, indicating a $2.4 million loss? Once again, this illustrates that the BPW does not know how much the loss will be for the plant by 2014, just as they underestimated the revenue.
Citizens have the responsibility to hold public officials accountable for correct answers. Should the BPW continue to impose taxes to pay for the "waste from nowhere?"
What is the shortfall by 2014? Is this a yearly tax in perpetuity? How long do we have to pay this tax? Is it $40 next year, $50 the following, can we cap this tax?
The county is demanding our money. Please demand correct answers.
Judy Nemitz
Traverse City
Too obese to fail
We recently received an e-mail from a downstate couple. We've been friends since the '60s. They sent us new phone numbers, land and cell.
We've lived here for 28 years. Our cell and land line phone numbers haven't changed. Our cell company started as NPI Wireless, became Cellular One and was then purchased by AT&T Mobility. A few more purchases and we may be down to one phone company, a monopoly, like a miniature government.
The U.S. government hasn't yet taken over phone companies (unlike the vehicle and financial companies). It just listens in. I remember when everyone listened in on those old party phone lines. Now government has a monopoly to do so, even on the private lines.
Ah, yes! We're safely in the hands of Uncle Sam.
But we're concerned with Uncle Sam's health, aren't you? It seems Uncle is getting very, very obese ... so obese that he likely can't even find a private company that will sell him health insurance; maybe not even life insurance!
Oh, well, not to worry. I forgot for a moment. Uncle's gotten so obese he can insure himself. And he's certainly too obese to fail!
Ron Fite
Traverse City
Shading the truth
It is astonishing how many people shade the truth or are ignorant of it. There is (so far) not one health care plan, but several, and to treat them all the same and pick out what is disliked about one and then another and conflate them is dishonest.
The public plan that the president has suggested is not like Canada's, or Britain's or France's; it is most like Switzerland's, so honest people should quit making comparisons to those other countries. As for Congress' coverage, the president's plan allows all of us to use our current health plan, if we prefer, and that applies to Congress as well as to you and me.
The "death panel" idea came from a quote taken out of context. In a 1996 paper, Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel, a bioethicist and an adviser to the current administration, wrote about various attitudes concerning treatment of patients who "are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens," and he mentioned that many people feel that such patients should not be guaranteed the same level of treatment as others.
However, he did not then, and does not now, endorse that opinion. Those who claim he does are lying or ignorant.
Sarah Shoemaker
Northport
Print this story
E-mail this story
