Big government means higher taxes

To the editor:

This letter is in response to J.R.'s editorial on Monday, April 19, entitled, "Time Now for Finance Reform."

Upon reading the article, beyond the first three paragraphs, I have some issues on the rest.

From what I understand, the whole housing issue stems from the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) pressuring the banks to give loans to couples who have a bad credit rating.

This organization believes that everyone has a right to own a home. I thought it was a privilege to own homes, not a right.

All banks have rules for loaning money to people, but were pressured by ACORN and the government - including the two government-controlled banks Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - to give the loans.

They said that the banks are too big to fail. Well, if the banks like Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Fannie, Freddie and the rest made bad decisions, then they should fail.

J.R. mentioned also about the health care reform package not having Republican votes, but had some Republican ideas.

With health care reform and this finance reform, you are growing the federal government bigger, not smaller. That means more taxes have to be raised to pay for the extra people hired to administer the reforms.

This is a fine example of why you should not trust the president.

When campaigning for the office, he promised not to raise your taxes below a certain amount.

Since he's been in office, your taxes for low and middle income earners will go up. Wait until the dreaded cap and trade that's coming.

That will probably be an excuse for industry to leave the United States.

Gary Miller

Portland

Bad choice

To the editor:

The Indiana Republican Senate Primary is a little over one week off.

Of the five candidates Richard Behney and Don Bates are excellent conservative businessmen and tea party candidates, but they are so far back in the polls that the most they can hope to do is split the vote and help elect the least conservative candidate.

Former U.S. Representative John Hostettler and Indiana Senator Marlin Stutzman both have excellent conservative voting records and perfect NRA ratings.

Former Senator Dan Coats is the Republican Central Committee's hand picked and bankrolled carpet bagging candidate. For the last ten years he has lived on the east coast and worked as a lobbyist for the financial industry.

In 1994 he voted for the worst anti-gun bill in the last twenty years, the so called Clinton Assault Weapons Ban. Yet he has the gall to run an ad saying that, as a Senator, he "stood by the Second Amendment."

Then and now he said that he supports strict constructionist justices for the Supreme Court, yet he voted to confirm the most extreme left wing activist justice on the court, Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

The Republicans lost control of Congress because of politicians who were not true to their promises and principles. The RNC's support of Coats is proof that they still don't get it either.

If Republicans elect a historically challenged, anti-gun, carpet bagging, Virginia lobbyist to run against pro-gun, moderate, Hoosier Democrat (Brad Ellsworth) they could end up losing what should be an easy Senate gain.

Stephen Erwin

Portland[[In-content Ad]]