WHOSE COMPASSION?

Government solutions should be last resort

I think syndicated columnist Robyn Blumner’s op-ed, “How did we become so materialistic?” in the July 18 Gazette deserves some comment. She wrote that, “Americans have been scared off of singlepayer health care, one of the government benefits that gives Canadians and Europeans great peace of mind.”

Any balanced discussion of health care, an extremely complex subject, would have to acknowledge the problems we keep hearing about in the Canadian system, such as the excessively long waits for critically needed treatment or surgery, people going out of the country for care, stories of doctors leaving the country, shortages of doctors and nurses, and the crushing tax burden.

Blumner’s view of a “caring society” is apparently one in which most of what we receive is a product of government largesse. Those of us who are opposed to this idea are concerned mainly about three things:

- The overwhelming evidence of waste and inefficiency resulting from governmental command-and-control programs here and around the world.

- The tendency of nanny states to destroy community. If the government is going to worry about the poor, I don’t have to. If my neighbor and I have to get together to solve our problems and work out our differences, rather than running to the government, we’re much more likely to see such cooperation as a force for the common good.

- The effect of the enormous tax burden required by the nanny state on investment and job creation. After all, the performance of the economy and the reduction of unemployment since the tax cuts of several years ago are, to say the least, impressive.

I’m not saying that government programs have no place in addressing the social needs of the country. I sense that the difference between Blumner’s view and mine is that, whereas she sees government as the first resort, I see it as the last.

Scott Hightower

Colorado Springs

PIÑON CHASM

Army should expand in El Paso, Pueblo counties

The headline in the July 11 issue of The Gazette, “Hints of Piñon growth payoff,” expressed the most recent argument of the proponents of the 400,000-acre expansion — the Army secretary’s opinion that the economy of Colorado Springs will benefit greatly if the expansion is approved.

The secretary’s argument in favor of the expansion focuses on the benefits to Colorado Springs and Pueblo. I fail to see why Huerfano County’s economy, and others in southeastern Colorado, have to be negatively impacted to benefit the economies of Colorado Springs and Pueblo.

If those areas wish to enjoy the benefits, why don’t they welcome the Army to expand in their own counties? Eastern El Paso and Pueblo counties offer terrain very similar to that of eastern Huerfano County.

Please see through the self-serving arguments of the secretary of the Army and two cities a distance from the proposed expansion itself. Please do not allow the short-sighted desire of the current political and military leadership to detrimentally affect Huerfano County’s economy and rural lifestyle for future generations because distant cities selfishly want to benefit.

Thomas M. Doerk

La Veta

RULES AND REVENUE

If you don’t want a ticket, simply follow the law

I am writing in response to the letter writer who claims that the Colorado Springs Police Department utilizes motorcycle officers and hidden locations as tools to “trap” drivers into speeding tickets. How do they trap them into speeding?

Speeding in this city is horrible, especially around schools and left-turn lights or when drivers race up to caution lights in attempts to beat the red light. Summer school lights flashing are consistently ignored.

You can’t get a ticket for speeding if you obey the law. I admit it is a revenue generator, but it has been proven they have cut down on accidents. All you have to do is obey the law.

Rodney E. Hammond

Colorado Springs

SIMPLE SOLUTION

Stormwater tax could fund creek’s improvements

Where can we find funding for Fountain Creek projects (“A call for help on Fountain Creek,” Metro, July 21)? Simple. A more deserving use for the stormwater tax could not be found. Where does the stormwater go anyway?

The tax is in place, and since it has been decreed to be a fee, it can be doubled or tripled without voter approval.

What more can you ask?

Mark S. Bowers

Colorado Springs