Under the leadership of President Obama we can continue to give away millions of hard-earned tax dollars to countries like Egypt, Afghanistan, Morocco and Pakistan (not exactly our closest allies).
We can waste millions of tax dollars on insane research programs too numerous to list. We can pay $100,000 salaries to staffers he hires. We can spend millions of dollars to fund his personal trips, vacations and golf outings.
Under the leadership of Mr. Obama we have a monster called a sequester. Its premise is that the government is losing tax revenues, when actually it is just not gaining additional monies.
Now I can’t tour the White House, may not be able to visit certain national parks and can’t enjoy the Charleston Air Force Base air show, which was recently canceled. They say life isn’t fair — this certainly is not. I guess citizens like me are not as important as the things listed above.
Brian L. Chandler
Too high a risk
If insurance companies really rule the country, and they check out the properties that they insure, then I cannot believe that people will be able to get insurance on an expensive home built on a sandbar.
And Captain Sam’s Spit is only a sandbar.
The March 10 editorial titled “Keep guns out of wrong hands” starts out by factually stating the need for the bill introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham. The bill’s objective is to prohibit seriously mentally ill people from buying guns.
Unfortunately the editorial quickly degenerates into the standard mantra that has become de rigueur for liberal Democrats and others who believe that reinstituting the so-called “Assaults Weapons ban of 1994” will work this time, even though there is no evidence to indicate that the law did anything other than penalize honest, law-abiding citizens during its 10-year life.
The facts are that more people are killed in this country every year by “blunt trauma” (hammers, etc.) than by semi-auto rifles. It is also a fact that there are many ways for deranged individuals to execute their despicable deeds.
For example: The worst mass murder in a school in American history did not involve guns. It involved explosives. The attack occurred in Bath, Mich., in 1927. This unspeakably horrible crime resulted in the deaths of 38 children, two teachers and four others. It could have been worse. Fortunately one of the 500-pound bombs that Andrew Kehoe had prepared failed to detonate.
Then there is this totally ridiculous, perpetual argument that magazine capacity will somehow magically stop these senseless killings.
Yes, I know that Jared Lee Loughner fortunately dropped a magazine while attempting to reload during the tragic shooting of Gabby Gifford, but let me assure you, this was the exception rather than the rule. Anyone with a little practice can perform a two-second reload.
Every one of the terrible shootings that has occurred in the last several years was performed by someone with serious mental problems, and I applaud Sen. Graham for understanding the root cause of the problem. I hope that we can follow his lead and apply substantive solutions that will help to control these senseless killings instead of wasting time trying to apply useless political whitewash that never has and never will prevent these abhorrent killings.
It all adds up
It benefits politicians to keep the public in a state of fear. It gives them something to “fix,” and tell us how they “saved” us. This was evident during the recent sequestration event. We were to fear losing all kinds of services because of a shortage of money.
So, why at a time where governments, federal and local, are experiencing a financial shortfall, does our Charleston County Council choose to award county government workers a bonus of $1,000 each of our taxpayers’ money? Then rationalize it as only about $3-$4 out of our pockets for these workers (without asking us, by the way).
A well-known politician once said, “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.” Wouldn’t it be nice if we all could award ourselves an extra $1,000?
Marsh Aire Lane
Sanford vs. Bostic
This is regarding the March 21 article titled “Bostic: No more Mr. Nice Guy as race heats up,” and particularly to Mr. Bostic’s statement when asked if he were backing off his pledge to run a positive race. He said, in part, “I want to be truthful and accurate when someone asks, ‘Curtis, what makes you distinct?’ ”
Well, Mr. Bostic, here are a few items that make you quite distinct from former Gov. Mark Sanford:
1) You have never eliminated almost $1 billion in public debt, 2) You have never been named the most financially conservative governor in the nation by the Cato Institute, 3) You have never been the first governor to reject Obama’s stimulus funds, 4) You have never saved $260 million in vetoes in 2010, 5) You have never had a state record of $24 billion of capital investment, 6) You were not involved in Boeing’s $750 million investment in Charleston, 7) You have not accomplished state-wide reforms, streamlining government and, 8) You have not been ranked the No. 1 fiscal conservative in the entire Congress by the National Taxpayers Union and Citizens against Government Waste.
I suggest if you want to distinguish yourself from former Gov. Sanford, you could inform all 1st Congressional District voters of your political accomplishments to compare with Mark Sanford’s. That way, we would definitely see the distinction.
Barbara E. Boylston
Although I vote in nearly every election, I am not otherwise a politically active person. I was shocked to see that Mark Sanford had received so many votes in the Republican primary and happy that Curtis Bostic would be in the run-off election. I have voted for Mark Sanford every time he has run for office until the March 19 primary.
I will never vote for him again. As evidenced during his last two years as governor, Mark Sanford has a moral code I find lacking and does not work well with other elected officials. I had hoped that he would just go away.
I have known Curtis Bostic and his family for more than 25 years and can highly recommend him to the voters.
There is not a lot to separate Curtis Bostic and Mark Sanford on the issues, but we will be getting a man with a much stronger moral fiber in Curtis Bostic. Please check out the website stopspending.com.
C. Edward Lucas Jr.
Indigo Point Drive
Negative ads lose
Based on my observation of the Republican primary, the three candidates who made the most negative comments about the other candidates lost. Good. They are John Kuhn, Chip Limehouse and Teddy Turner.
I don’t recall any negative comments by Curtis Bostic, Larry Grooms or Mark Sanford, the three top vote getters. Of course none of the candidates said anything meaningful, which seems to be par for all politicians.
Several of the candidates did say they are Christians. I do not believe Christians need to tell us how good they are. If they have run before or are currently in office, we probably already know.
If candidates call me on the phone campaigning, they’d better be on the phone so I can talk to them or I will not vote for them.
I know the pollsters tell candidates this scam works, but pollsters are like politicians. They will tell you what you want to hear. After all, they are paid well.
I wonder how long it will take for the losers to remove the campaign signs. John Kuhn seems to have the most. At some locations there must have been at least 10.
Why so many? Most of us can read and comprehend.
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point.