Inbox — Oct. 10, 2012
Letters to the Editor
In response to “What lies beneath” (LEO Weekly, Sept. 5), I found my brain hurting when I read the quote from Alejandro Capote (great last name). Capote said, “The Republican Party is not anti-immigration. We support immigration. We just support LEGAL immigration.” The irony, or the chutzpah, of his statement evoked an immediate and painful migraine. Because of the wet foot/dry foot policy, a 1995 revision of the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966, if a Cuban lands on our shores, they are allowed to pursue residency a year later. Thus, if Capote’s parents had been Mexican or Canadian and had floated to our balmy shores, they would still be considered illegal aliens. Apparently the irony of his citizenship, and his membership in the Republican Party, remains lost on him. How that is possible remains a mystery. I look forward to the punch line of this quote.
Mark McWane, Middletown
In the Sept. 26 LEO, Ricky L. Jones says that right-wingers often harbor a belief “that economic deprivation is a necessary stimulant for economic growth. The theory is that in an individual-driven, equal-opportunity environment, equal outcomes are achieved if equal effort is given.” While I suppose Jones would call me a right-winger, I do not believe that. Nor do I know of any other right-wingers who do. It strikes me as the sort of thing some progressives must say to reaffirm their own moral superiority: “Right-wingers want to keep people poor!”
On economic policy, I see the differences between right and left as often derived from whether one thinks wealth is primarily produced or apportioned. If one thinks wealth is produced, then individual economic liberty allows people to use their productive abilities to pursue their own version of happiness in their own way with no guarantees about what the outcome of their efforts will be. If one thinks that wealth is mostly apportioned through an economic system, then one favors designing a system to attempt apportionment in the way one wants.
As a right-winger and an American of modest means, I prefer economic liberty to economic systems.
Rich Mills, Shawnee
I am a 74-year-old middle-class male Caucasian who has been personally responsible all my life, voted for Barack Obama in 2008, and will proudly vote to re-elect him this November. President Obama is so presidential; he actually looks and acts like a president should, and is quite likable. He is logical, rational, cool in times of crisis and a commander-in-chief I can trust. I like what he stands for on most issues.
Unlike Mitt Romney, Obama identifies and connects with the overwhelming majority middle class and knows how crucial strengthening and expanding the middle class is. Throughout the Republican primary season to now, Romney has shown his inability to relate to the multitudes who struggle to make ends meet. His overriding passion is to make the small, rich minority richer, mistakenly believing trickle-down economics will create millions of new jobs, greatly reduce the wide income gap between haves/have-nots, and miraculously unite the country.
America’s choice this November is to move forward as a country with Obama or backward with Romney.
Paul L. Whiteley Sr., St. Matthews