By Steve McGourty

Sep. 9, 1994

In response to a letter by Mr. William H. Chambers published in the Wednesday, Sept. 7th Letters section of the Everett Hearld, I would like to respectfully disagree with most of his acrimonious views on what "we voters" want.

I have been a voter for 22 years, since I was 18, and have never been in favor of term limits. Unlike Mr. Chambers, I believe in less government regulation. If someone has been in office too long, vote them out. There is absolutely no need to change our Constitution to achieve this goal; it simply takes informed, involved voters. Maybe it is just that he is aware that recent history demonstrates Republicans don't tend to get elected or retained, so he wants to change the election rules.

Although I support balancing the federal budget, passing an amendment to the Constitution that mandates this would just cause politicians to get even more deceptive about how they report the numbers, rather than solving any problems. Since Mr. Chambers perpetuates the illusion that the Democratic Congress is the problem, let me present some facts. 1) The last president to submit a balanced budget was President Johnson, a Democrat. 2) Over the past 20 years the only other administration to limit growth of the federal deficit was that of President Carter, a Democrat. 3) In the twelve years of a Republican White House, not one balanced budget was ever submitted to Congress. Yet, out of the other side of their mouths, the rhetoric of both previous administrations continually called for a balanced budget amendment. 4) The deficit not only climbed, but at record rates, during both the Reagan and Bush years. 5) For the first time in a generation the federal debt's growth has shrunk dramatically under President Clinton's leadership. Democrats have shown action, not just words.

I might agree with Mr. Chambers on a line item veto for the president. Had Mr. Bush, the veto king, not spent so much time protecting oil company profits in the Gulf, and spent more time working on the economy, he might have gotten the line item veto, and been reelected.

The suggestion about reviewing existing appropriation bills is always a good idea, but a little late. It's already been implemented by the Clinton administration. Did Rush forget to mention that?

Mr. Chambers' views on AFDC funding are simplistic, naive and cruel. He suggests that first-time mothers not receive AFDC assistance but look to their parents or grandparents for support. Possibly a good idea for those with parents and grandparents, and who are not already at the poverty level. Do we just dump anyone without parents into the street? A much better solution has already been proposed by Mr. Clinton (the only reason it is not now law is because of the opposition to change championed by Bob Dole and his obstructionist cronies). This new legislation would continue to give these first-time mothers the support they need while also giving them training so that they can become self-sufficient. At the same time the problem of long-term welfare participants would be addressed. After two years of assistance and training the recipients are off the rolls. I guess Mr. Chambers chooses not to hear Mr. Bushs' call for a "kinder, gentler nation." He's not alone of course, Rush has also overlooked the fact that Republicans never did anything to fix welfare during their time in the White House (but are now outraged that nothing has been passed in the first two years of this presidency).

Taxing Social Security and cutting it to real cases of need sounds rather absurd. First, taxing a tax is unconstitutional, and a very surprising idea coming from a Republican -- Raise taxes! Isn't that sacrilegious for you guys? This inconsistency is just another example of the difference between the Republican rhetoric and how they act. The second point, of cutting SSI for all but those who need it, is repugnant. According to Mr. Chambers we should pay 7% plus of our earnings into a retirement system all our working lives and get nothing in return. Where is the incentive to pay into this system? That plan sounds more socialist than conservative. Is Mr. Chambers implying the conservative concept is to "Tax and Spend" (on someone else)? Just another conservative disparity between rhetoric and action.

I can agree with his thoughts on the treatment of convicted criminals. Once a person is convicted of a felony (for other than victimless crimes), the criminal should forfeit any and all rights. I came to this point of view while serving aboard the USS Ranger. The Feds did an investigation to determine if it was feasible to keep prisoners on board Navy ships, and to have them perform some of the work involved there (working in the galleys mostly). It was legal to work the prisoners 12 to 14 hours a day, just like a sailor, but the berthing afforded a sailor did not meet prison standards! My liberal attitude on this subject was permanently altered by that bit of information. Prisons should be self-sufficient. We tax payers should not have to pay to keep these social deviants contained, and certainly not a cent to insure their comfort while incarcerated. We spend entirely too much on "keeping the prisoners pacified". If prisoners want to riot about their living conditions, let them live in the destruction they create. I have as much sympathy for their general well being as they did for their victims when they stole from, raped, murdered and/or killed.

I do agree with Mr. Chambers that Judges have far too much power and far too few checks and balances.

However, Mr. Chambers seems to have forgotten that this country was primarily built by immigrants and their children. Apparently he would create a police state where if you did not carry your papers with you at all times, you would not get treated in hospitals or be able to attend school (or walk the streets). I do not share his phobia in this area.

I also do not believe that the insurance companies or HMOs are looking out for my best interests when it comes to health care. Insurance companies are in business to make money, not to give care. HMOs are in the business of giving care, but the folks running them seemed to be more concerned with the bottom line, than with the line forming outside the doctor's door. I do have a mild fear that if the Federal government gets involved with the health care system it could turn into a giant bureaucracy. I would still prefer their bureaucracy to over-paid, unaccountable insurance company executives who are more worried about their next bonus than my care. Although it's hard to decipher from Mr. Chambers' letter, he seems to blame Democrats for keeping Medicare costs below Bob Doles' inflated projections -- where's the problem?

Of the twenty-one points made by Mr. Chambers in his letter I agree with only four. Typical of people of the conservative persuasion, Mr. Chambers assumes that his way of thinking is the only right way of thinking. This kind of narrow mindedness does not allow one to see the other side of an issue, something we liberals probably do too well.

In the future when Mr. Chambers is inspired to write a letter to the editor claiming to represent "we voters" I hope he will realize that he is a single voice, and not the only one with an opinion. He does not speak for all voters. Far from it. I respect his personal opinion. I resent him miss-representing my opinion. The best proof that he speaks for a small minority is the fact that there is a Democratic President, a Democratically controlled Senate and House of Representatives in Washington DC and in Washington state.

Oh, there is one more thing that I agree with. The title above Mr. Chambers letter reads, "Federal Government, Changes must be made." He is right about that; we do need to sweep out the dead weight in the Senate that prefers gridlock to progress. It is time to dump Slade Gorton and send another Democrat to the Senate from Washington state. We need to get down to the business of changing government, something Republicans rant about, but that Democrats get done. This nation can not afford to tolerate Republican Senators who filibuster every new idea. Democrats could have treated Reagan and Bush that way, but they chose to govern. Democrats chose not to be intractable every inch of the way, they understand compromise, they chose not to act like the current gang of inimical Republican Senators. Dole sounds like a child throwing a tantrum most of the time, rarely like a legislator, and Slade just follows blindly, unwaveringly behind him. We need a Senator that is a leader, not an witless follower of fatuous distraction. I am sure Mr. Chambers agrees with replacing our senior Senator. After all, he states in his letter that Senators should serve only one term, and I presume he is a man who votes his convictions.

Back