Jump to content
I too have listened to Sheriff Wiggins in person. While he is a decent guy, I remain disappointed that a Sheriff would publicly say he will make not enforce the law. I know the arguments about where it can't be enforced, but there were situations where he said the law could be enforced (like sting operations). So he should enforce them, not give Joe six pack the idea it is OK to pick and choose what laws are good enough to live by. Poor judgement for a guy in such a position. Secondly, when he makes himself available to legislators he is simply a resource person with an opinion. His opinion can only be expected to be heard along with hundreds of other opinions before a legislator votes. The fact the vote went differently than he expected is not mind boggling for me at all.
Of greater concern is that the aspect which is partially unenforceable, was caused by legislators bowing to the gun lobby by making exceptions for magazines already in existence. The sheriff can't tell what magazines existed before the law was passed due to no serial numbers or date stamps. If the law had simply banned all magazines larger than 15 rounds, and magazine extensions to smaller magazines, it would be enforceable. Pretty easy. The sheriff said the law probably would not have passed under these circumstances. It is sad that once again our legislators succumb to lobbyist pressures. We did not elect these dang lobbyists.
Well said Ken.
If the truth were told, heard, and understood, Obama is probably the best pesident this country has had. The mess left by the previous Repuplican administration will take generations to recover from. Obama has done a remarkable job of saving the auto industry jobs (Romney has clearly said he wanted to let that buisness die), getting out of wars we should not have been in, reversing the t trend of Wall Street mega thefts, and getting people back to work (in light of corporations outsourcing jobs like a tsunami). More people have jobs every quarter since after the first 6 months he was in office per the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Congressional Budget Office shows the national debt is driven by tax reductions while financing wars (neither were Democratic ideas), and the loss of tax base (payers lost, again due to corporate outsourcing).
The $700 million was not taken from Medicare but was cash freed up by reducing the gross profiteering of private companies. The service to the people remains the same, but at lower cost. This is a good thing. To put that money into the Affordable Care Act for Americans is a good thing. It is frustrating people can't see this.
Romney, meanwhile, was one of the outsourcers, and a corporate raider who borrowed money to buy companies, load them with debt, and taking the cash for himself and leaving the company to fold... cases in point are KB Toys and Ampad. The parent company of Dunkin Donuts did not fold, but must sell 2 million cups of coffee per month just to pay the interest on the debt he saddled them with. KB and Ampad employees lost their jobs when the companies folded under bankrupcy. He invented "Dividend Recapitalization" to strip companies of their cash and pocket it. Not the benevolent job creator he is made out to be.
I am not in a position to argue factually about the constitution. While you may be very well educated on the subject and you may be right, I don’t accept your premise that it is unconstitutional without knowing more. The Cato Institute speaker I referred to was not convincing and seemed biased toward an outcome.
What is well known by most educated people is that health care insurance costs, and cost of actual care given has skyrocketed in the past 10-15 years. It is not because we now have CT and MR diagnostic suites that cost a millions… these tools actually reduce net cost. It is not because doctor salaries are increasing unscrupulously.
1. Private company (Hospitals/Insurance providers) greed and profiteering.
2. Unreasonable, unjustified, and extremely costly care given in the last 30 days of life. 78% of all healthcare costs for an individual occur in the last year of life… much of the 78% is in the last 30 days of life.
How can we stop this craziness? I see no answers that don’t involve government intervention. None of us loves big government, but this is a situation that calls for an urgent solution. The PPACA seems extremely well thought out and addresses profiteering as one aspect of control. The negative spinners will bring up death squads. This is crap thrown out to the public to stir emotions. The truth is that reasonable decision making has to be used in end of life situations or we will all pay through the nose for healthcare. Cancer is one of the biggest causes of abuse. Hopeless cases are routinely treated beyond reason and at great expense and suffering of the patient. People just like you and me, caught in the emotion of the moment, too often opt for doing everything possible to prolong life. Many times this is done against the will of the patient.
Thank you for your comment. I can't respond to every item you list, and I know from seeing your name elsewhere that you enjoy poking mercilessly at the federal government so it is not productive for me to expend too much time responding. But there are 2 points I will make:
1. I don't see everything you list as a failure. A few of the items you listed are not actually even run by the federal government.
2. Two examples you did not mention are Medicare and Medicaid which are closer to the point. Both relate to healthcare, and both are actually relatively successful if you consider the cost of care growth compared to private insurance.
Aggressive profiteering in the private sector has driven insurance costs and actual care costs for the past several years. The profiteering has been extremely destructive to individuals. The PPACA addresses this and the result will be lower cost for better or at least comparable care.
Good article Rob.
I am proud of our county commissioners for taking their responsibility to protect the safety and welfare of their constituents. There have been HUNDREDS of cases of ground water contamination due to fracking. Mr. Lindsey of Quicksilver lied when he stated that there have been no verifiable cases of contamination. When fracking first was introduced, this problem became known. One case is documented and the oil company involved lost. This was in the 1980s. The whole industry gave a big "Ah-ooh, we have a problem". Their lawyers changed tactics immediately to always settle these suits and have the evidence sealed from public scrutiny. Literally hundreds of cases of ground water contamination have since been settled. Millions of dollars in settlement paid out. It is a despicable practice to knowingly hide the evidence from the public.
My only wish is that the commissioners would simply say "NO" to all fracking. The process is nowhere near a six sigma process... which it should be if results can be non-reversible pollution and death. The oil industry is a child playing with a loaded gun.
A monitoring well catches the damage after it has occurred. The damage is irreversible. What good is that?
I just want to provide a little follow-up to address incorrect assumptions being purported in the commentary here.
Most experts in the oil and gas (O&G) Industry and those knowledgeable about world economic markets write that O&G obtained via fracking will have no impact on the price of oil or gas. It is a commodity traded globally. Local O&G companies will sell abroad if price is better.
Last login: Sunday, April 7, 2013
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.