We encourage readers to submit letters to the editor on issues of interest to East Valley residents. Submissions should be no longer than 300 words, factually accurate and original thoughts of the writer. Please be brief and include name, address, city and phone number for verification. Letters and call-in comments may be edited for clarity and length.
Illegal Immigration — Sheriff neglects Phoenix
Sheriff Joe Arpaio has now decided he does not like what Chief George Gascón does in regard to illegal immigrants, so he “raids” west Mesa to protect us. In three forays into Mesa, he has managed to arrest 31 “suspected” immigrants.
Why does he not worry as much about Phoenix, which has the same policies in place and is many times larger than Mesa? Also knowing the problems about illegals being hired in the neighborhood at 36th Street and Thomas, Pruitt’s Furniture has to hire his deputies, at their expense, to accomplish what Arpaio does on taxpayer expense in Mesa. His deputies have arrested 44 “suspected” immigrants there. What’s up?
Gascón does need voters
Isn’t it about time we, as Mesa taxpayers, start analyzing the actions of our mayor and the City Council?
They hired a police chief from L.A., and paid him thousands of dollars more than was allotted for that position because he could speak Spanish. They hired him knowing that he was an opponent of our elected Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
George Gascón came here with a chip on his shoulder and was not going to enforce or cooperate with the sheriff in enforcing the immigration law that was voted on by we the taxpayers. Gascón said, “I’m not running for office … I don’t need anybody’s votes.” But Gascón does need “us,” for we the taxpayers are the ones who pay his salary, or doesn’t he know that? Maybe he should consider cooperating with Sheriff Joe instead of making his enforcement of the law more difficult. If Gascón is not willing or able to enforce the laws as they are written, he should be replaced.
If the illegals — the cooks and gardeners, as Gascón called them — aren’t causing any kind of problems, why does he think it necessary to hire more Spanish-speaking officers? We are in America, aren’t we?
William H. Frankenberg
Retirement — Execs’ packages outrageous
Many people with 35 years’ work experience hope that $450,000 in retirement savings will be sufficient to carry them through their post-work years. A modest retirement is still possible with below 10 percent returns on investments, by slowly burning through the principal over a 30-year period, working part-time and having the house paid off. The greater question than why highly compensated insurance company CEOs deserve or need a billion-dollar retirement is why the American middle-class has to work so hard, for so long, for so little.
Consider UnitedHealth Group ex-CEO William McGuire (“UnitedHealth’s ex-CEO agrees to forfeit more than $400M,” Dec. 7) who recently settled a lawsuit against him by the Securities and Exchange Commission, related to a stock options scandal designed to offer maximum financial security to the retiring chairman. The article didn’t include how much of a retirement fund McGuire had besides the surrendered amount, but this writer suggests it could be an equal amount or much more.
The rules that allow companies to send coddled executives into retirement with hundreds of millions of dollars can and must be modified, to keep the money closer to ordinary people who actually labor with the details of hard work. Every bill we pay is padded to generate unnecessary wealth for undeserving people at the top of each business our money goes to.
Imagine the amount of money the rest of us could put aside for our retirement if the 20 ways we are obliged to spend too much money each month would be reined in by just 8 percent — taxes, interest on debt, utilities, food, housing costs, clothing and more. That $3,000 to $8,000 per year would be better left to the tens of millions of average persons than in the soft hands of the thousands of pampered executives among us.
War on terror — Liberals don’t look at facts
My family and I can survive against the emotion-driven, wrong policies that the liberal left would like to impose. Raising taxes, fine, I’ll make more money to compensate. No school choice, fine, strong parenting. Social Security, again, I’ll invest for my own future, fine.
Health care, this one is a little harder for me to facilitate myself, if the liberals get their way (a life or death issue), but I’m optimistic I’ll find a doctor to help me and my family. Again, all these and more national issues are fair game and, of course, extremely debatable.
What I cannot do for myself is protect my family from the countless numbers of radical Islamist killers. Now I can admit, I am not the best person when it comes to every issue, say, education. For example, when it comes to vote on education issues, I either educate myself on the topics or if I don’t have the time, I simply shut my mouth and leave that one blank. It seems to me, liberals know everything about everything. I find it hard to believe that the liberal left actually educate themselves about the war between free people and radical Islamists, and come to the conclusion that we should give up at almost every turn.
Believe me, it pains me to write this, but they are dead wrong; and they should stay out of this fight or look at all the facts, not opinions, honestly. Or are they so weak in nature, that they would risk all of us just to punish the conservatives politically? How puny. Liberals, feel free to rebut my words. I feel it will only clarify the extent to which liberal left has no backbone and only thinks in socialistic and political terms.
Environment — Divorced from reality
I have a real problem with this. Did researcher Jianguo Liu (“Divorce increases strain on environment, Dec. 4) take into account that the person who moved out of the household may remarry and move in with a single person (thereby doubling the people in that household) or with a single parent (thereby increasing the number of people in that household)? Was the purpose of the study to determine who is more environmentally friendly, or to discourage divorce in favor of staying married and keeping the family together?
And the premise that “one way to be more environmentally friendly is to live with other people, and that will reduce the impact” seems to encourage people to “live together.” It doesn’t suggest that they should be married to live together, just “live together.” That to me isn’t a good alternative to divorce. In addition, are they suggesting that there should be more than one family in a household? Perhaps we should all go back and live with our parents, or have our children and their families move back in with us!
I really doubt that people are going to look at the environmental issues when considering divorce. Many will consider the financial issue, that living separate will be more expensive, but not necessarily in environmental terms. The article states that, “per person, divorced households spent more per person per month for electricity compared with a married household, as multiple people can be watching the same television ….” Maybe we should all have larger families (say six to eight children per family instead of three to four) so that the per-person cost would be less. We’d be using the same amount of electricity, for instance, but the “per-person” cost would be less. What sense does that make? Sometimes these studies come up with some very ridiculous assumptions.