Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor 11/24

Last will and testament

To the next generation, I bequeath a corrupt government of inept congressional leaders, a crumbling economy dominated by soulless corporations, a lifetime of student loan debt and a dependence on fossil fuels resulting in the loss of young lives in foreign wars as well as irreparable harm to the environment.

Furthermore, if you choose to peacefully assemble on University of California campuses to protest your inheritance, you will be beaten and pepper sprayed.

You are welcome.

David Bruce Boicourt


Tattered, torn and faded

I am in and out of SLO airport frequently and can’t help but notice how tattered, torn and faded is the U.S. flag that is being flown at the airport!

Is it too much to ask the county of SLO to replace it with a new one? I cannot believe that general services/proprietor doesn’t have it in their budget to replace something so ragged or why anyone would display it in this condition.

D.R. Blodgett

Los Osos

Road to responsibility

It’s time-consuming and tedious to monitor the machinations of the SLO City Council. The council just passed a nearly $1 million plan to upgrade sidewalks, paint light posts and install underground conduit in a tiny two-block section of downtown SLO. Never mind that a bare-bones project would have cost much less, or that our bloated Public Works department couldn’t figure out how to do the work itself.

This is the council that, in developing the 2011-13 budget, continually hand-wrung about the financial crisis in which the city finds itself. It gutted programs for seniors and the poor (although it reduced its administration by none).

Yet Mayor Marx, with council members Carpenter and Ashbaugh, managed to find the extra $200,000 of cost overruns for this boondoggle.

Why? Because the Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Association ordered it.

There will never be fiscal responsibility in this city until these elitist, out-of-touch money-slingers are ousted. It’s as simple as that.

Will Powers

San Luis Obispo

Legal grounds

In Michael Sullivan’s (“The general welfare,” Nov. 22) rebuttal to my Nov. 7 letter defining the basic goals of the Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party movements, he states, “We the people define the meaning of ‘the general welfare.’ ” He identifies the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) as an example of “general welfare” and states that the meaning of “general welfare” is a “political question, not a legal one.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear and rule on the legal challenges to ObamaCare.

The principal aspect of ObamaCare that has been challenged is the mandate; the requirement that all citizens buy health care or pay a fine. Supporters of ObamaCare point to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution as justification for this mandate.

Thus, Sullivan is wrong. Clearly, ObamaCare will be decided on legal grounds, not political grounds.

Occupy Wall Street extremists like Mr. Sullivan want “we the people” to define programs established by the federal government irrespective of their constitutionality and what it does to the country. The outcome of such liberal mentality is best described by Barry Goldwater, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.”

Donald Hirt

Paso Robles