Letters to the Editor

In an August-2010 letter, I mentioned a USDA employee who made (supposed) racial statements at an NAACP gathering. Shirley Sherrod (a black woman), spoke of how she didn’t use the full force of what she could do in helping a white farmer get a farm loan. A video of this was posted by Tea Party activist Andrew Breitbart on his website. When it became news, Sherrod was hurriedly ordered to resign by Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack. The NAACP released the statement “We are appalled by her actions... her actions were shameful.” Sherrod said she was taken out of context and claims were made that Breitbart had doctored the video.

When the full video surfaced, the NAACP reversed it’s statement saying they were snookered by Fox News & Breitbart. However, Breitbart had posted his video as he had received it (unedited on his part). Because the NAACP had constantly been calling the Tea Party racist, Breitbart wanted to show where racism really lives. The video showed how the audience was laughing and applauding as Sherrod described how she maltreated the white farmer. They didn’t know her speech was ultimately going to be about redemption.

Attackers accused Breitbart of wanting to destroy Sherrod for her role in “Pigford.” Having never heard of Pigford, Breitbart began to do more research (my hero). A Google search for “U.S. Opens Spigot” returns a New York Times article that completely vindicates the late great patriot Andrew Breitbart for the work he did exposing this story. His attackers are silent.

Pigford vs. Glickman (1999) was a class action lawsuit against the USDA, alleging racial discrimination against black farmers seeking farm loans between 1983 & 1997. Because few records remained for verification, claimants were not required to present evidence that they had been unfairly treated or had even tried to farm. It became a magnet for fraud, by it’s very design encouraged people to lie. In 16 ZIP codes in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi and North Carolina, the number of successful claimants exceeded the total number of farms operated by people of any race. Thousands received $50,000 payments.

Congress overrode President George Bush’s veto of the 2008 farm bill, which had a provision allowing late filers to bring new lawsuits. Discrimination suits were brought by Native American, Hispanic and female farmers, but Congress had appropriated only $100 million for compensation.

President Barack Obama was more than willing to accommodate. His political appointees at the Justice and Agriculture Departments engineered a legally questionable way to sidestep Congress (a now common occurrence) by raiding $1.33 billion from a special Treasury Department account, known as the Judgment Fund. A Treasury Department official said, the fund is not politically accessible, only legally accessible. Calling the action “...a license to raid the till.”

In the past five years, a runaway train, driven by racial politics, pressure from influential members of Congress and law firms that stand to gain more than $130 million in fees, has grown to encompass more than 90,000 people who have filed claims. The total cost could top $4.4 billion.

In 1996 President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) into law. While I agree that marriage should be defined as being between one man and one woman, I don’t believe the federal government has any say in the matter. Problems lie in the fact that people in same-sex unions are denied benefits given to traditional married couples. The law has been controversial ever since it’s enactment.

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is currently deliberating on DOMA’s constitutionality and that of California’s Proposition 8 which is basically the same thing at a state level. Proposition 8 is different in that the state and the people had the constitutional right to enact this legislation in 2008. It was overturned by a U.S. district court judge in 2010, ruling that it violated both the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. In 2012 a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed the decision and a majority of the full Ninth Circuit stayed the ruling, pending appeal. Proponents then filed a petition for SCOTUS to review the case.

People “in the know” are saying that SCOTUS will decide that DOMA is unconstitutional but won’t get involved in Proposition 8, not wanting state’s rights issues in their purview at this time. By declining to act on Prop 8, the decision will effectively go back to the Ninth Circuit Court ruling against the will of the people. I think it is unfortunate that both of these issues are being addressed at the same time. The point at which DOMA is repealed will give sway to one side or the other.

My thinking is, the process should start by looking at over 1,100 benefits that are being given to couples in traditional marriages. Without researching what they are, such a high number makes me think that many of them may not be necessary. States would then define their respective laws, deciding whether or not people in same-sex unions will receive the same benefits allowed to married couples. I think they should, but others disagree. State laws are decided by the democratic process.

Any federal law would only pertain to federal benefits. It would not punish same-sex couples and would not give excessive rewards to anyone. It would not define marriage. I’m not militant about the word marriage, but I’m a traditionalist. I don’t think it right to redefine what has been associated with religion by millions of people for thousands of years. This is a complicated issue and the process will not be easy. That federal courts can so easily overturn the will of the people will continue to keep decisions in limbo. The main objective should be looking at ways of getting the federal government out of the mix.

We need to keep in mind that media coverage of this is a distraction from the most pressing problem the country faces. If we don’t fix our dying economy, most other issues become irrelevant.

I walk with our dog in Ehmen Park and around Lake Helen almost daily. A pet peeve of mine (pardon the pun) has grown exponentially in the past few years. My pet peeve is the dog waste left on sidewalks, along sidewalks and in the grass of our park areas. We have a great walking path around the lake that has been less than desirable because of the goose waste. Now that the lake’s rehabilitation has begun, I have high hopes this annoyance will disappear. However, dog waste is even more of a problem and seems to be piling up at an alarming rate. I might miss Bentley’s mess once in a while, but I seldom finish a walk without using a litter bag. Please, pet owners, take responsibility for your pets, respect our parks and keep them clean for other users.

Any business owners out there? Do you take advantage of legal tax breaks on your income tax return? Would you like your business to grow? If it did would you expect that you should still be able to take advantage of legal tax breaks? As your business grows, at what point do you become a “very wealthy” individual at an evil corporation? When do you lose the right to decide what to pay your employees?

Almost any business owner who itemizes deductions can deduct the expenses of using their car for business purposes. If these benefits shouldn’t be extended to more successful business owners with jets, I guess Congress should change the law. Democrats controlled all three branches of government for two years. They didn’t change the law. The chair of President Obama’s now defunct Council on Jobs, Jeffrey Immelt, is also chairman of General Electric. In 2010 GE paid no taxes on $14 billion in profits. Wow, what happened there? They took advantage of legal tax breaks.

Some in Congress have been working, others have not. I just looked at a webpage listing 40 jobs related bills passed by the Republican-controlled House, now in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s pocket, awaiting action by the Democrat-controlled Senate. Without looking further, I’m sure there are many more bills the House has passed. Two bills provided alternatives to going through with the sequester. Inaction at that point fell at the feet of Harry Reid and the Democrats.

The sequester “spending cuts” are not cuts. They are a reduction in proposed spending. Even with the reduction, the federal government is set to spend $15 billion more than they did last year. Seems like that would be enough to reverse the president’s decision to shut down tours of the White House.

His golf weekend with Tiger Woods cost taxpayers over a million dollars—enough to save 341 federal workers from furlough. If sequestration is the only way to cut Obama’s ridiculous spending, so be it.

Even if reductions in national defense makes us less safe. The military will have to find ways to be more efficient/less wasteful. It would be nice if the real driver of our debt—entitlements—could do the same. Far more jobs will be lost through Obamacare than sequestration.

I find it interesting that the House led by John Boehner and Eric Cantor passed the “No Budget, No Pay Act” on Jan. 23. One hundred ninety-nine Republicans and 86 Democrats backed the measure to place the salary checks for each member of Congress in escrow until a budget agreement is reached.

Nancy Pelosi called it a joke. Steny Hoyer called it a “political gimmick.” Harry Reid said the Senate would “seek to pass” it. President Obama would not oppose the bill if it reached his desk, knowing that will never happen.

The bloated federal government spends so much on unconstitutionality, it can’t deal with the constitutional powers (the job) entrusted to it. We voted for these people.