Letters - Sunday

HONEST CROOKS
Asay incorrectly likened swindlers to outrageous federal programs

Chuck Asay's Dec. 20 cartoon implying that Social Security and Medicare are Ponzi schemes was an insult. How dare Asay besmirch the merely bad name of Ponzi by associating it with the truly monstrous pyramid schemes of FDR, LBJ and LBJ's heir, George W. Bush.

Ponzi was an honest swindler, and today's Bernie Madoff is the same. These men merely lied and cheated to rip-off unsuspecting investors. But they couldn't force anybody into their trick plans the way our utterly corrupt political system can. And Ponzi accounting practices just cannot compare to the sham accounting of these government programs.

Here are some facts about these programs:

• When Social Security began, there were 17 workers per retiree. Now, there are about 2.5, and the number of workers to retiree is still declining.

• The original retirement age was set at 65, which was quite cynical, given that 1935's life expectancy was 65.

• More and more workers have been forced into the Social Security program. For example, certain Missouri public school employees are scheduled to be switched from their much better retirement system to Social Security. A pyramid scheme always needs more participants.

• Medicare's unfunded liability as of 2006 was $70 trillion; Social Security's about $16 trillion. Taxes will go up and/or benefits will be reduced to sustain these con games.

As our benevolent government robs Peter to pay Paul, part of Paul's money for Social Security and Medicare is actually being spent on other things. But not to worry because the government leaves an IOU to itself for every dollar it diverts.

There are 65 million or so baby boomers. If, like me, you are one of these folks, be afraid, be very afraid, for you may not get what was promised. If you are younger, be afraid, be very afraid, for the baby boomers might get what was promised and you will have to pay for it.

Pyramid swindles? Definitely. But don't call them Ponzi schemes. They are much worse than that.

Richard H. Timberlake III, Colorado Springs

KEEPING THE FAITH
Writer's faith in god of science leaves room for doubt on issues

Larimore Nicholl doesn't seem to have a high regard for faith, ancient anything, the Bible, Republicans, Christians, Jim Dobson, Focus on the Family or those whose values don't embrace equal rights for homosexuals ("Dobson's fixation out of step with modern science, thinking," Letters, Dec. 19).

He would replace the above with his god of modern science that holds all truth for him. The truth is that much that science holds are hypotheses and not proven conclusions. In other words much that science holds as "truths" are based on "faith" in some evidence. If science has all truth, why is it that top world science experts disagree on many issues?

I'm not opposed to science, only to science as the divine authority as Nicholl believes. Actually, science and the Bible are in harmony on many biblical teachings and other teachings are held by faith just as in science.

Dobson is a Christian first, a very good psychologist second and the last thing he cares about is fame. He is vitally interested in world, national, community and political issues.

When Christian values are devalued, Christians should speak up for their values just as Nicholl is doing for his values. I think Nicholl wants the opportunity to broadcast his values, but wants Christians to keep quiet and go away.

In regard to the "principle of law" for homosexuals to marry, the basic principle in law is to obey the law of the land. Except for a very few states, most states hold that marriage is between one man and one woman. If it were "equal treatment for all" in marriage, where would Nicholl draw the line on who or what he would exclude from marriage?

Vernon Gene Swim, Colorado Springs

DOING IT RIGHT
Today's teens work hard to help less fortunate around the world

I feel the need to respond to Rodney Hammond's statement, "and I can't see any teenager giving money away" ("Family has a right to spend own money however it sees fit," Letters, Dec. 18). I implore him to take a look around.

Teens today are given a bad rap. Look at the teens who give their allowances or money earned to the Red Cross following disasters, give to the The Salvation Army Red Kettle drive, donate time to local charities, begin prom dress trading for the teens unable to afford their prom, have toy drives. Just read The Gazette and you will see stories throughout the year.

My two teens were taught from a very young age about the less fortunate and grew up putting 10 percent of their allowance into a charity bin. As a family we decided how to give it away.

They are now teens and this is no longer required, they now to decide on their own to give money away. I am proud to say that without prompting they have purchased mosquito nets to fight malaria in Africa, purchased newborn kits for expectant mothers in Serbia, brought water to underdeveloped communities and purchased chickens for families to assist them in getting a start to self sufficiency. My daughter has just spent the past year collecting used uniforms from her school athletic programs to send to Uganda through One School at a Time and the Indians through One Nation at a Time. These are the teenagers today.

My children do not attend regular church, but live their lives in a compassionate, empathetic and selfless manner.

Jean Offutt-Lindt, Black Forest

DREAM CITY
Churches, military play key roles in advancing local arts scene

This is in response to Tom McElroy's vision for Colorado Springs where he postulates our city would be better off (and a mecca for the arts) if the military were to disappear and local churches close their doors for lack of funds ("Film, art in place of military, churches," Life, Dec. 21). It never ceases to amaze me how intolerant the "tolerant left" can be.

I encourage McElroy to spend a little less time lamenting the lack of federal, state and local grants for the arts (artists, of course, can only be "provided for" by the government through taxation, according to McElroy) and spend a little more time viewing an exhibit at Woodmen Valley Chapel, listening to a concerto at Village Seven Presbyterian, seeing a play at Sunrise Methodist or watching a dance performance at New Life.

McElroy misunderstands history on two points. First, freedom of speech (and with it, freedom of artistic expression) is the sacred right of people, safeguarded by a robust military. The military in Colorado Springs both insulates our local economy and visibly reminds us of the cost of the very freedom he enjoys. Second, the Christian church and artistic expression go hand-in-hand. One only needs to study the Renaissance to see revival in the church correspond to an explosion of the arts in all its forms.

I pity McElroy in his vision for our city and pray (yes, to that God you hope will move to Texas) that his vision is not shared with that of providence.

Chris Rea, Colorado Springs

WHAT'S IN A NAME?
Christmas trees rightly belong to December's Christian holiday

In her Other Voices column, Lorraine Coke-Clark argued that "A Christmas tree should be seen a symbol of humanity celebrating the holiday season encompassing all persons" ("Is a Christmas tree a religious symbol?" Dec. 20). I respectfully disagree.

In my opinion, a Christmas tree is solely a Christian symbol which has an important role in the celebration of the Christmas holiday, and those of us who are not Christians - Jews, Muslims, pagans, eco-spiritualists, Buddhists, Baha'i, secular humanists and others - have no need for a Christmas tree; We have our own religious symbols for our own holidays.

Simply stated, a Christmas tree belongs to Christmas. It is not "just a tree." Or rather, in March, it is "just a tree," and in August, it is "just a tree."

But in December, it is not "just a tree," it is a Christmas tree.

Rabbi Mel Glazer, Temple Shalom, Colorado Springs