Letters To The Editor
WELFARE
Why spotlight excuse makers?
Your Nov. 18 article, “Working out welfare,” is a joke! You are writing concerning welfare people who do not want to work or get off welfare.
I am a college graduate. I worked and went to school full time with chronic pain and internal problems, and was told a few years back that I had fibromyalgia. This man needs to get off his pity party and support his family. If he was on welfare and his wife “can’t get a good job,” they should have stopped having children.
I know a single mother with four children, ages 5 to 15. She is a full-time mom and a full-time student. Her ex-husband does not help but she finds or makes the time to get excellent grades and help all of her children with their homework. The only complaint she has is that welfare is cutting her dry before she can get an education that will make her employable. You cannot get a good job, in Spokane, with an AA degree.
So, maybe the newspaper should pay attention to people who actually want to get off welfare, not those who have absolutely no excuse. Elly Slama Spokane
Producing too hard, reproducing’s not
After reading Jonathan Martin’s Nov. 18 article, “Working out welfare,” about how John Thaemert claims he has been too ill to work the past 10 years, my first thought was that he didn’t seem to be too tired or in too much pain to father five kids during that time! Nadine J. Presta Spokane
Damage of system, abusers plain to see
Re: Julie Grahm’s criticism of my Street Level piece on welfare reform (“Most welfare people aren’t parasites,” Letters, Nov. 8).
For 25 years, I’ve made my living as a low-income housing provider. If you could have accompanied me during these years, you’d have met a man who owned and operated a tow truck, while he and his wife collected welfare, and another who turned down my job offer rather than lose his benefits. You’d also have met a woman who drew welfare and a housing subsidy while living with her employed boyfriend, running her own day care and renting out an extra bedroom.
Meanwhile, two elderly renters were raising their grandkids with far smaller checks because they lacked that woman’s skill in working the system.
You’d meet dozens of folks with large yards who never grow gardens because they have food stamps and food banks. You’d help us clean out four drug houses - all rented to welfare recipients. I’d show you the lines at Lotto counters on welfare check day.
You’d discover that few beneficiaries have true handicaps. Most are “victims” of their own mistakes and lifestyles. You’d deal with a bureaucracy that encourages folks to find excuses for failure, rather than working for success.
Worst of all, you’d see that few long-term recipients use the system to correct their mistakes. Most use it as a crutch to avoid living responsible lives.
When you understand the true nature of this system, you’ll realize that welfare is our most destructive social experiment since slavery. L. Jim Shamp Cheney
Wisconsin showed reform can work
This can work, folks. WorkFirst programs already started by such states as Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio are further along than ours because they are approaching the problem logically.
When Tommy Thompson, governor of Wisconsin, began his program, President Clinton first threatened, then cut off, federal funds to Wisconsin’s welfare system. He was bound and determined to make Thompson’s plan fail so he could show it as a failed dream. Then this president, who was re-elected at least partially because he would “change welfare as we know it,” could justifiably increase welfare spending.
Wisconsin tuned the tables on such dishonesty. The state refused federal help, and by redirecting its own funds and resources, invested in more child care, education and transportation - the main avenues of success for those with enough guts to get off welfare.
It’s beginning to work there, and now that conservatives have forced this administration to accede to our wishes, it can work here. I say can rather than will because there will always be liberal detractors who believe the state should provide all services to protect every new “right” they can think of. They will stop at nothing to preserve the status quo.
We don’t ask for the elimination of welfare, but a reduction in the numbers. There will always be truly needy families and for them I say, take my taxes, please. For the others, I say: Turn your backs on the liberals who want to provide a free check without the responsibility of earning it, for it is these liberals who are, and always have been, to blame. Michael G. Wiman Spokane
Support reference misleading
I am writing to offer a correction in staff writer Jonathan Martin’s Nov. 16 article, “Single mom loosens welfare grip.”
Martin states, “The fathers of Coyne’s kids pay $124 a month in combined child support.” This is impossible, because I pay $110 a month in child support alone. This would leave “the other father” paying only $14. What he means is that Coyne gets $124 of the child support that is paid by the fathers; the state of Washington gets the rest because she is on public assistance.
I am paying $110 a month child support because I am going to school part time and working part time. When I finish school and start my career as a respiratory therapist, I will be paying more. I might add that I see David once a week via court-ordered visitation, but I see him more when possible. Steve A. Thompson Spokane
Welfare father ran up the tab
The Nov. 18 article, “Working out welfare,” about the family trying to deal with the difficulties of being on welfare, did not address the most important concern in my mind: Were these parents being responsible when they continued to have children and ask others (taxpayers) to help support them financially?
This father claimed to be disabled and unable to work. Unless I am missing some information, it appeared that the father of this family of five decided 10 years ago he was unable to work and had to rely on public assistance. In the family pictured, it looked as if at least three of the children were under 5 years of age, which would mean they were born well after this decision.
When someone is asking for the public to assume financial responsibility for them, we have the right to expect more responsible choices. David Barlos Veradale
LAW ENFORCEMENT
No good reason for WSP action
Being one of the many who feel Native Americans have been discriminated against, generally treated badly by previous generations, there is now a change in my thinking. In light of some recent experiences, including the front page article of Nov. 16 - how long must we pay for the decisions of our ancestors?
I am appalled at the treatment of the Washington State Patrol officers transferred before the investigation was complete. Why should preferential exceptions be given to a group of American citizens?
It seems the WSP officers were, and are, doing what they were trained and hired to do. Their actions may have saved lives.
If the tribe’s law enforcement cannot take care of the drunk driving problems on or around these highways, then it seems only logical that the State Patrol or other law enforcement agency should give citations.
Many people use the roads mentioned, not just Native American citizens.
How long will it take before there is another accident - including deaths - due to drunk driving? Will that be swept under the rug to keep peace?
I believe all Americans, regardless of race, age, religion, political ties, economic state, education level, status, sexual preference or position must be accountable to the same laws.
The bingo and casino establishments appear to be doing well. Hopefully, this profit is contributing to the improved standard of living and education for many.
Are we really being helpful to continue making exceptions for Native American citizens, or are we enabling?
If there are facts we do not know or understand, then educate us. Joanne McInnes Valley, Wash.
Drunk part, not race part, matters
Re: DWI politics nabs trooper.”
Wait a minute. Isn’t driving while intoxicated against the law? It doesn’t matter if your skin is white, red or whatever color, it’s still a crime.
We guess it’s only logical that if you’re stationed by the reservation that a high number of tickets would be written to Indians. It’s still against the law.
Stop these people before they can hurt some innocent person. Maybe the solution would be to station more troopers near the reservation and really solve the problem. Too bad there wasn’t something in the article about what percentage of DWI arrests by the tribe’s police were of Indians.
Most important of all is how many of the arrests by the trooper were justified.
If the tribe is a nation unto itself, let’s close our borders and let them endanger each other. We’re sure most of us could give up gambling if it meant safer roads.
It’s time for people to stop crying discrimination every time they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar. They need to take responsibility for their actions. Mike and Chris Mielke Sprague, Wash.
CHURCH AND STATE
It’s the state that needs protecting
I would like to thank Mike Matiska (“Founders did intend Christian nation,”) Letters, Nov. 18) for pointing out my incorrect use of the Constitution.
However, the Treaty of Tripoli (containing the 11th article) was signed on Nov. 4, 1796, near the end of President George Washington’s second term. It was unanimously ratified by the U.S. Senate the next spring and signed and proclaimed by President John Adams on June 10, 1797.
Any further action in 1997 by the U.S. Senate, as Matiska stated, would be inapplicable to the intentions of our founding fathers who approved the document 200 years ago.
I grew up in Connecticut and moved to Spokane in April of this year. Being from New England, I have been exposed to the culture and local lore and legends of that area dating back to when it was first settled.
Traditional Christian values of the time included the torture and/or putting to death of those thought to be witches or possessed by evil spirits - people we refer to today as mentally ill. These values were also later responsible for slavery and the slaughter of millions of what were then considered heathen savages - people we refer to today as Native Americans.
Oh, and while were at it, let’s not forget the modern Christian values responsible for the persecution of homosexuals and non-Christian legally consenting adults.
You see, Matiska, the above stated facts are why I am not alone in my interpretation leaning more toward the state needing protection from the church in its ever growing propensity to persecute and harass nonconformists. Richard T. Morton Spokane
Document makes founders’ intent clear
If letter writers had to back up their arguments with references, they wouldn’t be able to make inferences that seem to support their point of view.
Mike Matiska (Letters, Nov. 18), of what significance is the Arabic version of the Treaty of Tripoli? The version ratified by the U. S. Senate and signed by President John Adams reads, “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion - as it has itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen (Muslims),” (“Article 11, Treaty of Peace and Friendship between The United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary,” 1796-1797. “Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America,” edited by Hunter Miller. Vol.2, 1776-1818, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1931, P.365.)
This readily refutes the idea the founding fathers intended to create a Christian nation. Kay D. Hayes Coeur d’Alene
Christian nation notion unsupported
Mike Matiska (Letters, Nov. 18) “shall continue to insist that this is a nation founded on Christianity, as our founding fathers repeatedly have said.” That is his right.
If, however, he seeks to convince anybody else, he’s going to have to correct some glaring inaccuracies in his argument.
Despite his claim, he does not cite a single one of the founders as saying any such thing. Further, there is not a single word anywhere in the Constitution about God or anything religious. That is something he can easily check.
The Convention of 1787 is well documented in Madison’s journal. It makes no mention of Christianity. If founding a Christian nation was the founders’ plan, why were they so secretive about it?
When wrangling threatened the Convention, Benjamin Franklin moved that a minister be brought in to lead them in prayer. He was voted down by an overwhelming margin.
Matiska puts great store in a 17th article having been omitted from the English draft of a 1797 treaty which had been written in Arabic. The fact that this article is missing tells us nothing about the 1787 intentions of the authors of our Constitution.
Matiska’s stand is based solely on faith, without a shred of objective evidence to support it. Edward B. Keeley Spokane
Yes, Spokane needs its ayatollahs
Re: “Commissioners’ decision ‘courageous’,” Letters, Nov. 19. The county commissioners’ decision on the Deja Vu were so righteously made that I would like to add some more.
Since the porno industry’s treatment and depiction of women is such a contributing factor to the breakdown of family values, let’s ban all forms of pornography. Including, but not limited to, those evil depictions of scantily clad women in those horrible fashion magazines.
Then, since we’re on the right track, we’ll impose city ordinances requiring all women to wear clothes covering every bit of exposed skin, even a veil. We can’t afford to have any men getting turned on for any reason. We’ll arrest and prosecute anyone displaying any and all forms of affection or attraction between sexes and require all men to carry a Bible on their person at all times. This will instill a wholesome image to our great city of Spokane.
We’ll close down all the bars (as we all know how drinking and dancing lead to drug abuse and violence) and impose alcohol prohibition again - it worked so well back in the 1920s.
As we all know, people are too stupid to think for themselves, so we need our illustrious local politicians to guide us through our wicked, wicked ways. Bart C. Larsen Spokane
THE COLD WAR
No heroes among ‘Hollywood Ten’
“Russian revelation” (Perspective) graphically recounted personal stories of the depredations of the communist regime under Josef Stalin. This week, you saw fit to print “Painting the town red,” in defense of 10 members of the American motion picture industry imprisoned for refusing to cooperate with the House Un-American Activities Committee. Is you paper equating the two actions?
According to the article, the Hollywood Ten were martyrs and their refusal to cooperate with the HUAC is held up as an ideal. In fact, they were communists at a time when international communism was a very real threat. Morally, their activities on behalf of communism make them culpable in some degree for the human misery perpetrated in support of that loathsome system. To place this in another perspective, had those individuals been National Socialist admirers of Nazi Germany, their fate would not have been an issue, and in this lays a certain hypocrisy in that several people were killed by Stalin and Mao for each death attributed to Hitler. (Tens of millions in the U.S.S.R. and perhaps 100 million in Communist China).
The final irony is author Victor Navasky’s use of I.F. “Izzy” Stone to support a defense of the 10. Stone was an American journalist who is now known to have been recruited by the Russian secret police, and who served as a paid agent of influence for the Soviet government. George A. Bratina Spokane