|
Open Forum: Priorities of U.S. leaders are wrong
Today's Dispatch (2-2-07) reported that the Senate voted to raise minimum wages from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour, but it would take two years to phase in. I suppose our "compassionate conservative" senators were worried that if the wage shot up all at once, a lot of people would hurt themselves spending all that new found wealth.
Meanwhile, the former CEO of Home Depot was given a $210 million golden sprinkling as a going away gift, in appreciation for not doing his job very well.
A standard work year is 2,080 hours (52 weeks times 40 hours - just remember "tax form 1040 times two"). If this CEO was an unusually hard worker and worked an 80-hour week, spread over a year that's still $50,000 per hour. (Within a year he'll likely find another job.)
Fifty-thousand dollars per hour vs. $7.25 per hour. Isn't there something immoral about all this? If not, it should be. No one should ever be worth almost 7,000 times that of another. Money is finite. When more money is put in one place, there's less in another.
Isn't there something immoral about a board of directors who would pay that kind of money, or a man who would even accept it?
We are a nation where people are homeless, children are without decent health care, and a suicidal Iraq war veteran was turned away from treatment because of lack of facilities and staff. (He was turned away at two different Veterans Administrations facilities, Minneapolis and St. Cloud, and was told he was No. 26 on the waiting list. I can imagine someone saying, "Please take a number.") Four days later he killed himself.
Meanwhile, our "thousand points of light" leaders keep us busy arguing over the "morality" concerning gay civil unions. Where are their priorities?
A. Martin
Merrifield
War defenders slandered opponents
It seems so long ago, the debate leading up to the invasion of Iraq and the early months of the war. One of the last speeches of the late Sen. Paul Wellstone urged the Bush administration to not invade Iraq. While a majority of Americans went along with the administration's arguments in favor of war, which we now know were at best wrong, and at worst lies, a significant minority in Brainerd and elsewhere spoke out against the war. Now, a solid majority of Americans believe that it was a mistake to invade Iraq, and that our country would be better off if we had not gone to war. Does anyone still think that we "liberated" Iraq? When was the last time you saw one of those signs?
How do we learn from this so we do not get fooled again? The politicians who supported this war, many of whom had never served in the armed forces or fought in any wars themselves, held off criticism by accusing anyone who did not agree with them of being unpatriotic or anti-American. The best defense for them was a good offense; instead of addressing the serious arguments against the war they personally slandered their opponents. Next time, let's not listen to self-proclaimed superpatriots who sell a dubious war by questioning the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with them.
Ed Shaw
Brainerd
Freedom to Breathe Act' defended
I am the Senate author of the "Freedom to Breathe Act" which addresses secondhand smoke. Recently, Rep. Steve Sviggum, the former Speaker of the House, wrote a column that distorts the facts surround this issue.
This bill is bipartisan. It is authored by both Democrats and Republicans. Addressing the health and economic impacts of secondhand smoke should be nonpartisan.
The former speaker suggests that the Freedom to Breathe Act will not cover Native American casinos because of partisan politics. This is not true. The speaker is well aware that the tribes are independent nations and that the Legislature can neither exempt nor include them in state law.
The former speaker also implies that workers should have to accept the conditions their employers provide, even if they are harmful. The idea that employers may not want to create safe environments for their employees because of economic reasons goes to the heart of the reason unions were formed. The Freedom to Breathe Act is also about the right of employees to work in a safe environment.
The question for debate is: at which point is government required to act to limit one group's rights for another group's safety and well being? Some may believe in Rep. Sviggum's argument that one's right to do what ever they want with their property always trumps public health. In regard to secondhand smoke, there is no safe level or method of ventilation that can protect the public and especially the worker. This justifies the state's action to eliminate secondhand smoke in all workplaces.
Currently, 11 cities and six counties in Minnesota have some type of smoke-free ordinances. It is now the Legislature's obligation to level the playing field with a statewide law that protects everyone's right to breathe.
Sen. Kathy Sheran
DFL-Mankato
|
Overcast, 61°
