If our rabid Red State Republicans are worried about Sen. Ben Nelson's Democrat affiliation, they can breathe easily these days. By saying he'll vote for the extension of Dubya's tax cuts for the wealthy, he's obviously chosen to cross the Senate aisle and come over to their dark side.

It's been proven statistically that the leading causes of our nation's deficit were the George W. Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy. Those lost tax revenues did nothing to improve the country and its crumbling infrastructure, enhance business unless you were a banker or stock trader, or help fund our two current and senseless wars. Rather, they only enriched those who were already rich; in other words, Bush's political base, the "haves" and the "have mores."

As a retired school teacher, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people earning a minimum of $200,000 or couples earning $250,000 annually. And I'm a little fuzzy on just what is classified as a "small business." Who in our state running a "small business" actually grosses $200,000 a year? What most business owners have done is cut their labor force, increased per-person productivity by having their remaining workers take up the slack with perhaps modest if any raises at all, and laugh all the way to the bank. They're not hiring, that's for sure!

This fiscal chicanery is in the same league as the right-wingers who are spreading myths about the insolvency of the Social Security trust fund.

Jim Hejduk, Lincoln

Translate Bible correctly

As to Merlyn D. Braunsroth's religious diatribe ("Homosexuality in Bible," LJS letters, Aug. 11), might I suggest he obtain original texts of the Bible to translate some of the phraseology for himself? He might be surprised at some of the words that Paul wrote that truly had nothing to do with homosexual relationships. And, by the way, Kay Siebler ("Marriage is complicated," LJS, Aug. 7) only said that Jesus said nothing about it, which he didn't. Jesus did say to not judge others (Matthew 7:1), and to love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:39).

That aside, Siebler's comments did not necessarily extol the benefits of a nontraditional household; rather, they simply reminded us of the African proverb: It takes a village to raise a child. The more positive influences a child has surrounding him/her, the better he/she will grow into adulthood!

Finally, as to the political slippery slope you started to slide down: Allowing homosexual couples the same 1,049 rights afforded to heterosexual couples seems to be not only constitutionally sound, but also fiscally rational! If the United States grants rights to one group of people, doesn't it make sense that all groups of people should have them?

And the money issue: Gays are statistically the most affluent subculture in the United States, thus being able to tax them as a married couple might just help us balance the deficit.

Deb Malin, Lincoln

Bring on a debate

Our 3rd Congressional District is huge, and congressional candidates need a media forum to reach residents. A well-organized debate with appropriate ground rules sponsored by the media that reach the 3rd District constituents would be ideal.

What candidate wouldn't want to be a part of such a media event?

Rep. Adrian Smith, that's who. Candidate Rebekah Davis has personally asked the congressman to have this debate at his convenience because she knows, with his duties, some dates won't work.

Smith indicated he didn't have any time for a debate. My ultimate question is: Why not?

Please, Congressman Smith, accept Davis' request to debate important issues so that all 3rd Congressional constituents have a chance to hear both of your views.

Lisa Fricke, Lexington


Load comments