Response to recent letter

I usually write in to discuss a thought on my mind, but the level of misconception presented by Vic Bothast in the paper Saturday, Oct. 9 was in need of a check and balance.  
Unfortunately, each issue could be a whole letter, and I must be brief to touch them all.
I agree with Mr. Bothast in saying that we should work to stimulate Corporate America.  
If the government would stop seizing excess money from businesses, large and small, businesses could invest more of their own money to grow.  With expansion, businesses would in turn hire more employees, which would increase the need for an educated workforce, and finally increase wages due to employee demand.
Again I agree with Mr. Bothast in saying that we could do without Social Security and Medicare.  The amount I “invest” into both programs all but ensures that I will not receive an amount equal to or greater than my contributions.  Who would make that investment in real life?  
If people had the strength and conviction to plan for the future and live within their means, neither program would be necessary.   I disagree with Bothast’s comment on disregarding the poor.  Sometimes people hit a rough patch, through unexpected medical bills, loss of a job, or any other number of negative occurrences.  
Those are the moments when truly good people rise to the call to help those less fortunate.  I agree that there are greedy people who would never do such a thing, but they will reap what they sow, and in the end who are you or I to judge them?
I acknowledge that businesses employ illegal immigrants, and this is truly unfortunate.  We should seal our borders to protect the safety of both American lives and jobs.  However, I might feel more dissatisfaction about this argument if someone collecting welfare would happily take the usual “not so glorious” jobs currently held by illegal immigrants.  
Before someone condemns me of not liking immigrants, let me clear the air.  If you want to legally apply for citizenship to the United States, I support you.
Then, there’s the issue of education.  Although I strongly believe that public education is not the responsibility of the government, it’s still a good investment to show everyone the knowledge and skills that an education can provide.  
In lieu of this statement, Washington’s power grab on education has led to inefficient spending, a reduction in the parents’ role in education, and a massive increase in spending which has yielded no improved results.  Reforming the education system to begin dealing with these issues would help everyone, poor and rich alike.
It’s interesting how the top earners in our society are always bad people who have no compassion for anyone or anything.  Let’s get real.  A lot of these top earners give back to society.  This can be through something as simple as charity, or as complex as job creation. Are some of them greedy? You bet, but if I don’t like what they’re paying me, I have the same opportunity they had to create my own wealth.  
If it bothers you to make the top one or two percent “rich” with your hard work, quit your job and do what they’re doing, but better.  
It is easy to point the finger at the nasty rich people, but I must ask, if you put yourself in their shoes by taking the risks they did, do you think that your opinion would be different?
Lastly, the point of a business is to make money, and jobs are a positive byproduct of that.  Perhaps we should be thankful that someone took the necessary risks to increase their wealth, and while doing so, provided job benefits for all of us.
Mr. Bothast’s interpretation of influential people and God is most disturbing.  If a reader is naïve enough to believe that politicians or businessmen are in the right while cursing God’s name, then I venture to say that this reader lacks integrity, faith, a conscience, and an understanding of the difference between right and wrong.
In conclusion, I think the tea’s taste would improve if Mr. Bothast and others would quit mixing it with the Kool-Aid.
Matt Minnich
Portland

The choice
To the editor:
Monday night I watched the debate for the US Senate between Ellsworth, Coats and Libertarian Rebecca Sink-Burris.
Quite frankly Libertarian Rebecca Sink-Burris was knowledgeable, articulate and nailed all the questions.
She made Ellsworth and Coats look like a couple of arguing school kids. If she had a chance to win she would get my vote.
Instead I’ll vote against Ellsworth who was against Obama Care and the stimulus before he caved into pressure from his party bosses Obama and Pelosi and voted for them.
Stephen Erwin
Portland[[In-content Ad]]