Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Letters to the Editor
Dear Editor:
On Thursday evening, Oct. 23, I, along with many proud parents, had the pleasure of attending the fall performance of the Rockport-Fulton Middle School choir.
I am not one to usually write letters to the editor, but I am still upset about the behavior which went on in the audience.
I never believe teachers receiv their due as far as the amount of time and sometimes money they put into our children. The choir, the faculty, volunteers, and the students put more time and effort into this program than any of us will ever realize. Many of these students have been chosen to perform in regionals. All of them (teachers and students) deserved better behavior from the audience.
Apparently, adults have never been to a formal concert, or haven't been taught any manners or etiquette. There was constant talking; not from the children, but from adults who should know better.
To the people behind me who spent the entire time fussing over their video camera and to the couple in front of me who had no control over their crying toddler - next time please be quiet or just stay home. Our kids and their teachers worked too hard for so many adults to be so inconsiderate of their time and hard work.
RFMS choir - you were awesome. You are blessed to have the faculty which makes up the choir department.
Candace Guernsey
Dear Editor:
After Charles Smith's advertisement about the county attorney's race, people such as County Court-at-Law Judge Bill Adams and Commissioner Oscar Pina requested as president of the Aransas Area Bar Association and a former elected county and district attorney, I weigh in on this office.
I know both candidates in several capacities, and both Richard Bianchi and Anita O'Rourke have acted effectively and ethically in our legal dealings, however their backgrounds are vastly different.
Where I differ with Smith and Bianchi is their statement which implies the criminal and family part of the county attorney's office are the “little things” and Bianchi's lack of criminal and family experience are not important, as the taxpayers can simply pay for assistants to handle those matters.
Drunk drivers, kids selling drugs at school, and family violence causing injury comprise the vast majority of these “little” matters. These crimes have an extremely high rate of repeat offenders and many lead to more serious offenses. They need to be dealt with seriously from the outset.
My 16-year-old son Huey is starting to drive, and I am in fear a drunk driver will hit him, as car crashes are by far the number one cause of death among American teens.
Criminal law is an entirely different ballgame from what Bianchi is used to, even having its own code of criminal procedure. Family law is also quite tricky and there is nothing “little” about the Child Protective Services cases which shape the lives of families and young children. Bianchi's experience has been in real estate and civil law, which would be an advantage with commissioners, yet is not crucial for this position.
Although I voted in the last two GOP primaries, I consider myself totally independent and have never voted a straight ticket. Offices like county attorney, county clerk and district clerk have no policymaking features and should be non-partisan. Bianchi hopes voters will not look at qualifications and simply vote against O'Rourke because she is a Democrat, however as he is new to our county, he might find voters care more than he thinks.
The final and perhaps most important difference is O'Rourke will give up her extensive practice and be a full-time county attorney, while Bianchi will use the office to supplement his income. The salary and benefits package offered approaches $100,000 annually, and someone who claims to serve the county can survive on that.
Supporting an inexperienced attorney working part-time, instead of an experienced one fulltime, shows poor fiscal responsibility, hurts law enforcement, and smacks of “good ole boy” politics. I'm for Anita O'Rourke.
Steve Fischer
Dear Editor:
We seem to be confused about so many issues when deciding who it is we should vote for President in this election. I can't even begin to tell you how many times I have heard the issue about experience brought in to the conversations as a major factor of fear. Obviously this is not the only issue, but it is a question many people have had to deal with. Considering the fact I was a delegate for Hillary Clinton, I too have had issues with experience before and after Senator Barack Obama was nominated. What I have found is it is imperative to understand what it is each candidate has to offer for the stability, care, and safety of our country.
At a level in which we are completely involved in Aransas County, I feel I need to address the county attorney position when it comes to experience. I have lived in this county for just over 20 years, which has placed me in the courtroom on several occasions. I was married here, divorced here, dealt with child support issues here, dealt with my ex-husband on his relinquishment of his parental rights here, dealt with issues where tenants weren't paying their rent or wrote bad checks while I was a rental agent here, and worked as a caseworker for the first-time offender program in our court system. I have had the opportunity during the several occasions to see firsthand the work which has been done by Anita O'Rourke, as she has been a constant in the courtroom. I can write, without any reservations, O'Rourke is extremely qualified for the position of county attorney.
O'Rourke is well aware of how our court system works and knows what it will take to keep the system intact and on track. There will be absolutely no interruption when she takes the position of county attorney. She is a determined, extremely qualified, hard worker and she will fulfill this position with her intellectual strength and love for our county. I know I will feel secure we have chosen the best candidate for this position when we all unite and elect O'Rourke because of what she has to offer for the stability, care, and safety of our wonderful county.
Thank you,
Ann Emery
Dear Editor:
Barack Obama promises to cut taxes for “95% of working families.” That is a clever pitch and no doubt a vote getter. The most clever is to redefine the meaning of “tax cut,” because his plan is actually a government handout of tens of billions of taxpayer money. It is “spreading of the wealth” to use Obama's own words. His plan includes:
€ A $1,000 tax credit for couples earning under $150,000.
€ A $4,000 tax credit for college.
€ A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (in addition to the interest deduction).
€ A savings tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.
€ An expansion of the earned income tax credit up to $1,110.
€ A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses per year.
€ A “clean car” tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.
Here is what he is not telling the taxpayers. At least 44% of his 95% pay no income tax and all but the clean car credit will be refundable, which is political double-talk meaning you can receive these checks even if you pay no income tax. In other words, they are a transfer of income - a federal check - from taxpayers to nonpayers.
This was once called welfare, but Obama's term is “spreading the wealth.” Whatever it is called, I do know it is just another Democratic government handout disguised as tax credits which has Socialist overtones. The top 5% of the real taxpayers already pay more than 60% of the total tax burden, yet Obama wants to redistribute some more of their income disguised as a tax cut.
The Tax Policy Center estimates these refundable tax credits will increase from $647 billion to $1 trillion during the next 10 years This is from a guy who promises to balance the budget. I don't think so.
Cecil Smith
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of rockportpilot.com.
Submit a Comment
We encourage your feedback and dialog, all comments will be reviewed by our Web staff before appearing on the Web site.
