Las Vegas Sun

April 18, 2014

Currently: 76° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Letter to the editor:

Election is about compassion’s value

Another view?

View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:

Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.

Columnists - local and syndicated writers.

Letters to the editor - readers' views.

Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.

The Sun’s Sunday editorial, “A real choice this fall,” frames the upcoming election around “Americans’ view of citizenship,” saying that we can choose “candidates who can work together, or ... political divisiveness.” For the first two years of this presidential term, Democrats had complete control of the government, and they had no thought of working with Republicans.

This election is not about “Americans’ view of citizenship.” It is a contest between two basic sets of beliefs about the moral value of compassion.

Democrats believe in unbounded compassion for whichever group is less prosperous, powerful or healthy: poor over rich, workers over business owners, the unhealthy over the healthy.

The liberal article of faith is that the underdog is virtuous and deserving. But unbounded compassion sends the message that some groups have a claim on the ability and labor of others.

Republicans believe in compassion for anyone who cannot take care of themselves: the handicapped, infirm and helpless. For everyone else, they uphold the freedom to think and act as they choose, within the limits of laws that protect life, property and opportunity, the right to the rewards of their labor, and responsibility for their actions.

In the upcoming election, Americans will choose between boundless compassion, and the claims of entitlement it engenders, and compassion weighed against economic realities, fiscal prudence and the well-being of future generations.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 41 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. Good letter Mr McCord. Very well stated.
    The boundless compassion of the left is an expression of a different form of greed. Needs are unlimited. Resources are scarce. The left will eventually squeeze out the aged and less able as the resources decline. Witness the $716 billion raid on Medicare to pay for Obamacare.

  2. Amen letter writer. Democrats have created an entitle minded society of Americans over the last 50 years. And many republicans have sustained it. Half of Americans in the country work and pay taxes so the other half can be paid not to. A hand up has become a hand out. Our society and government are dying from lazy, entitlement minded, give me now mentality of freeloaders. At the expense of those Americans who work hard every day and struggle to live the American dream. And want to provide a better life for their children and their childrens' children. Vote Romney-Ryan to get this great American ship of state back on the right course.

    CarmineD

  3. In my opinion, in some ways, R's have the better argument. If too many people are supported by the government, eventually that cost overwhelms those that are paying and probably as importantly, this kind of 'government solutions for everything' society undermines self sufficiency and the work ethic. The problem is that R's talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

    You cannot be in power for good parts of 8 years and do zero about an income tax code where the wealthy are able to escape taxes and 50 % of Americans pay no income taxes and then call for change when you are thrown out of power. You cannot spend like the opposition party for 8 years, run up large debt and then fight every tax increase proposal you see. You cannot call for changes in many areas, to increase employment, then be too timid to explain exactly what you would do, how you would do it and how you would pay for it.

    Numbers in the electoral college say the R's are more likely than not to lose this election. If that happens, they need to go get a dictionary, look up the word 'hypocrite', understand its meaning and make sure the next time they are called that, the shoe doesn't fit so snugly.

    Yes, D's are hypocrites too, but just because the other guys are doesn't always make it OK for you to do what they do and be what they are and then claim you are different.

    Michael

  4. The upcoming election is not a choice between boundless compassion and compassion "weighed against economic realities". It is about the economic realities and whether we're all in this together or we're in it strictly for ourselves.

    Today's comment pages will fill with the usual suspects decrying anyone in need as worthless sponges sapping the prosperity of the hard working productive few, a group that they belong to, of course. Deeming the recipients of aid as unworthy may salve the conscience, but true compassion exists whether sufficient resources are present or not.

  5. "This election is not about "Americans' view of citizenship." It is a contest between two basic sets of beliefs about the moral value of compassion."

    McCord -- you couldn't be more wrong. This elections is about the same thing every election has become -- money, greed and power. The worst part is We the people vote for who puts on the best show, not who's best for the job. Voter stupidity is evident when only Rs or Ds get elected to national office. Until that changes nothing else will.

    "The upcoming election ... is about the economic realities and whether we're all in this together or we're in it strictly for ourselves."

    PISCES41 -- all too true. Considering how this country was built on a foundation of freedom and lone men's enterprise, my vote is for the latter.

    "An election is a moral horror..." -- George Bernard Shaw, Irish playwright, 1925 Nobel Prize winner

  6. This letter is funny. Mr. McCord just took what political realities are happening and switched them around.

    The poor Tea/Republicans are the ones being taken advantage of by the nefarious Democrats.

    Gimme a break.

    The truth of the matter is that the entire Tea/Republican Party is over reaching and made a pact to seek nothing but the complete and utter destruction of President Obama and his entire administration. They STILL are following a policy that President Obama cannot sign anything into legislation, no forward movement, no working with him AT ALL.

    And they have went further.

    They have all emphatically said that if President Obama wins, they are down on record that they will ensure the next four years are TOTALLY and COMPLETELY ungovernable.

    They have failed. And now they have double downed and wish to continue failure for the American people. All because of stupid party politics and a childish temper tantrum that they want to be in power and don't care what they have to do to America to get that end.

    Enough. People are sick and tired of the silly games they play that get us nowhere. We get rid of all of them with out votes.

    They made this choice for the American people. We can't be blamed for their bullheadedness and their extreme policies that are basically undigestable.

    We have no alternative but to obliterate them from the political landscape of America.

    Obama/Biden 2012! AND a Democratic Party majority in the House and the Senate!

  7. Hyperbolic rhetorical excess is not a substitute for contextually accurate facts. This letter has zero substance.

  8. This letter reads like a cheap political advertisement, taking one grain of possible truth and erupting into a volcano of lies.
    The iota of truth is that the Republicans do in fact have the bar on compassion/need set much higher than the Democrats. That presumably would save the government a lot of money due to a decimated social safety net.
    However, as a Canadian with no political affiliations, it seems apparent to me that the Republicans if elected will make America a much harsher society, and I think that would be a tragedy. Mr. Romney is very presentable and appears to be a good person, but he is filthy rich and joined at the hip to the very worst attributes of dog eat dog capitalism. I don't see how it is possible for him to have any sympathy for anyone but the rich.
    It seems from the recent polls that the debate is moot anyway since Mr. Obama appears to have an overwhelming lead already.
    Although I deplore Mr. Obama's overspending ways, Mr. Romney would destroy America's middle class and discard America's poor onto a pile of misery.

    Don Desaulniers

  9. Here is where I must part company with Don Desaulniers. The truth is that unless America gets a handle on deficit spending and debt... and soon, the American middle class will be destroyed.

    To get to a balanced budget, American society is going to have to get harsher and everyone's taxes are going to have to be increased, and we are going to have to scale back our work as the world's policeman.

    Too many people seem to want to minimize the FACTS that we are borrowing and printing money at a rate more than 6 % of our entire GDP each year because we spend more than we tax and that our debt of 16 trillion dollars is more than our entire yearly GDP.

    President Obama and the D's can claim that a small increase in taxes on the rich ans spending more money we have to borrow and print is going to fix everything... but 'math' tells a different story. Romney is very little better in his claim that reduced taxes on everyone will fix everything. Again the problem is that stubborn 'math' that just won't cooperate.

    This government can help those truly in need if it willing to reign in the waste and money going to undeserving folks. If that's harsh... too bad. The government can also fund a strong military. If that means we can't be the world policeman anymore.. too bad.

    Some tough decisions are coming. We will either make them voluntarily or circumstances will make them for us.

    Michael

  10. Actually no. Here is the choice:

    Someone who favors increasing taxes on the wealthy, but not by enough to make a real difference, will try another stimulus of 1 trillion dollars and more and who apparently believes that government can spend enough money to create millions more jobs and that somehow our economy will grow enough to magically stop deficit spending and pay off the debt, not only without cutting much of anything but the defense budget and even spending more in many areas.

    Another who proposes to raise taxes on nobody, but to instead cut taxes for everyone, cut government spending without telling you where or how, but wants to increase military spending and that somehow doing this will grow our economy enough to magically stop deficit spending and pay off the debt.

    I say both plans are utter baloney! I realize we all have to choose, but ANYBODY that is actually enthusiastic about either candidate, either plan or either party needs to have their head examined.... at least in my humble opinion.

    Michael

  11. Some buy into the class warfare spewed by Obama and his staff. It's a lie. Spin. The middle class lost 30 percent of their net worth since the president came to office and its still going down. Middle class will be taxed more under the Obama tax reform, as will small businesses. As soon as the Bush tax rates and payroll tax cuts expire on January 2, 2013. It's a nightmare for workers, and the US economy. Even the CBO says so. CBO, as in the president and Congressional Budget Office.

    CarmineD

  12. Under a Republican controlled White House and Congress government grows at insane levels. As soon as a Democrat is elected they get blamed for the size of the government left by previous administrations. The government in now the size it was in 1968, but you'd never know that by listening to a number of pundits who care nothing about facts. On "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos, Paul Krugman schooled Rand Paul on the size of the government explaining it is far smaller than under the Bush administration.

  13. It was Reagan who culled the government from 1980-1988 setting into place the framework for dimishing both active military and civilian for the longterm.

    FWIW, government civilian hires increased under Obama, and still, after falling in all previous administrations starting from Reagan.

    CarmineD

  14. WRT the Obama myth that he cut Federal spending, the corollary to cutting full time government positions, here's the truth:

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/12...

    CarmineD

  15. Vernos,

    It's not the size of government that is the important thing at this point (although the foolish R's always frame it that way). The economy is slow, tax revenues are down and government spending is way up, making an already troublesome and dangerous deficit spending issue and the debt even worse.

    I have no problems with President Obama asking the wealthy to pay more, but government spending must be throttled back and everyone must be asked to pay higher taxes.

    Neither Romney or Obama is saying that. They are both offering fairy tales for our future that cannot come true without divine intervention.

    Michael

  16. I have to disagree with you Mr. Casler.

    Cutting the size of the government, both military and civilian, is just as symbolic as it is essential for serious government spending cuts. Why? Simple. It shows taxpayers that our political leaders are serious about cutting the size and cost of government BEFORE, that is BEFORE, they ask the taxpayers to sacrifice by paying more in taxes. That's exactly what President Reagan did and to a lesser extent President Clinton too. Recall what President Clinton said at his State of the Union address in January 1996: "The era of big government is over."

    CarmineD

  17. Carmine,

    If we lived under a dictatorship or Conservatives controlled all 3 branches of government, neither of which is likely to happen, you could force government cuts without tax increases.

    That isn't reality and since it is becoming critical that we get something done, I'm ready to do some horse trading. I think many Americans are ready.

    In the past, R's have foolishly agreed to increased taxes (which can be implemented quickly) in exchange for spending cuts... later... that then never happened.

    It's hard for me to believe that R's are incapable of driving a bargain where government spending cuts happen at the same time tax increases do.

    If they are that incapable, we need better R's. Everyone needs to realize that if we don't compromise soon, finances are going to force things on us that will turn out to be much more onerous than compromise.

    Michael

  18. The moral VALUE of compassion when you're dead broke?

  19. People from all walks of life laughed their butts off when Bill Cosby said this in one of his routines: "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out of it and make another just like you."

    There are about seven (7) billion people on this planet. There is more truth in Cosby's words than people want to admit.

  20. The short-sighted always get confused by numbers.

    Some facts:

    "In 1953, there was one Federal worker for every 78 residents. In 1989, there was one Federal employee for every 110 residents. By 2009, the ratio had dropped to one Federal employee for every 147 residents."

    Where did the government add workers?

    "Overall, security agency employment grew by 22 percent from 2001 to 2010. During the same period,
    employment in non-security agencies as a percent of population fell by 4 percent."

    Yup, Homeland Security, Border Enforcement, etc.

    Executive Branch employees per 1,000 population
    2002 (Bush) 9.1
    2010 (Obama) 8.4

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal...

    And the Sharron Angle voter calls for more compromise in Washington. Bwahahahaha!

  21. "Executive Branch employees per 1,000 population
    2002 (Bush) 9.1
    2010 (Obama) 8.4

    Only one piece of the pie [Executive Branch]. What about the rest of the government?

    CarmineD

  22. "Again, where is Carmine getting his information from? FOX NEWS?"

    No on the job. Read my post then read below. Look up Base Realignmant and Closure Commission, on Reagan's watch.

    "The BRAC process was designed from 1988-89 to close excess military installations despite the political challenges (see Pork Barrel politics) which arise when facilities face activity reductions. Because a military base can attract millions of federal budget dollars to its locale each year, members of Congress often make closures difficult. Congress created the BRAC process in 1988 as a politically palatable method to pursue such goals."

    CarmineD

  23. "And romney said let GM AND CHRYSLER FAIL."

    Mr. Teamster and letter writer:

    Let me be the first to tell you. TARP was Oct 3, 2008. The first check to GM and Chrysler from the Feds was done by Bush on Dec 12, 2008 for $ 17.5 B. On March 16, 2008, Fed intervened to halt collapse of the "too big to fail" financial institutions. On Oct 3, 2008, FDIC increased deposit insurance to $250,000 from $100,000. On Sept 19, 2008, the US Treasury announced guarantee of money-market funds. "Who saved the US financial system?" All these and more started on Bush's watch.

    And the above is the reason Obama called Bush unpatriotic for the huge run up of debt. And promised if elected to cut the deficit in half on his watch. What did he really do? Raise it by over one third in less than 4 years, $5 TRILLION. Same old tax and spend. Just new rhetoric. And he and you believe it.

    CarmineD

  24. Sorry letter writer, too early in the morning for me. This should have been addressed to another author on another thread. The one looking for a new doctor to cure the country ills. You sir are right for all the reasons stated above. Sadly, the wrong president gets [takes] credit.

    CarmineD

  25. The divide in America today...

    Republicans;
    "I, Me, MINE!"

    Democrats *(& the majority of Independents)
    "We, Us, OURS."

    The misguided notion that a 'Corporation' is a person deserving of our unequivocal support, but our poorest, our children & the elderly ought to 'toughen up' and 'make do without governmental support' because they're a 'drain on the system' is poppycock...and those that espouse this nonsense while claiming to be 'religious' (which includes many of the TeaNuts) are oblivious to the tenets of ANY faith that I am aware of.

  26. It is not about 'DEEMING' anyone unworthy, Pisces41. It is about doing something to raise people out of poverty. I always hear liberals claim that it is better to teach someone to fish than to give them a fish--life vs one day and all that. So how does giving someone who doesn't work money or food stamps or housing make them want to earn that tomorrow.
    It is interesting that liberals claim to be compassionate but FDR and BHO both give/gave less to charity than RR or Bush. Conservatives on average give a greater % of income to charity than libs. Give blood more often; give more of their time in actual pursuit to help people help themselves.
    Compassion is MORE than taking money for someone and then giving it to someone YOU beleive is worthy of it or NEEDS it more. When did someone's NEED become a legal obligation of some stranger? And how far does that need go? Must I give up a kidney if someone needs it? Must I loan my neighbor my car if he needs it? Take him/her into my house--if he needs it?
    Perhaps all of these things are MORAL obligations but since when did LIBS conclude that govt and morality went hand in hand--every argument that I've heard is that govt and morality should be kept apart. Where did this idea that the GOVT is the enforcer of what is fair? How do mere humans define the good for all? Do people become geniuses and angels when given govt jobs?? I think not! I trust in the indiviual to spend his/her money better than a faceless nitwit in DC. You see that 70% of all govt money never gets to the poor--would you give to the Salvation Army or any charity that spent 70% of the money on overhead??? I think not. Why should be allow our govt to spend so inefficiently!!? We shouldn't. That is why being free to choose is the answer to a lot of the world's problems. And if giving to the poor is such a commandment of libs, why are so many liberals VERY rich--BHO has millions, Kerry has 1/2 a billion dollars, surely he could get by with 1/4 of a billion (somehow). Why do bill and hilary have 10s of millions? Shouldn't they be out there giving lots to get people health care, if they worry about it so???? So rather than deeming someone unworthy we are saying that those who earn it ARE worthy of making their own decisions about who gets it and how much--it seems that the only person who has NO rights to the money (according to libs) is the guy who's time and effort went into earning it!!!!!!!!!!!!

  27. Libyans kill 4 Americans on 9-11. Planned attack. US knew it and let its guard down. Eqyptians storm US Embassy burn the US flag. [US gives how much in taxpayers' money for foreign aid every year to these countries and people]. Obama wishy washy on response. Apologetic. And BTW is throwing Israel/Netanyahu our oldest and closest ally in the region under the bus.

    And Romney's going to lose because of this?

    What galactical planet are you people living on because it certainly is not earth or any where close to it.

    CarmineD

  28. "When you find the Presidential briefing that shows we "KNEW ABOUT IT" send it to Orly Taitz, she and you make a good team.

    You're ridiculous."

    Really? Who's ridiculous? The US had intel that the consulate in Beghazi was going to be attacked. Why do you think the building and people were evacuated from the consulate and grounds.

    And your illustrious president came here to Las Vegas to campaign in the midst of this foreign crisis. The Arab spring has become the autumn crisis. Rather than stand watch in the WH while the rest of the US Embassies and diplomatic residents around the world are secured and locked down to preempt further violence and deaths.

    Well, what can you expect from a president who attends only 44 percent of the security briefings in the WH.

    CarmineD

  29. BTW, Andrew Sullivan and the Romney rep are absolutely right. I concur with them. Romney should not comment on the meeting, YET. Obama snubbed PM Netanyahu. It's up to Netanyahu to set the record straight and say whether it is a real intentional snub or a scheduling conflict. No one except the PM can make that call.

    CarmineD

    PS: Israel will attack Iran with or without US backing. It will happen before the election.

  30. Re Carmine. "why do you think the building and people were evacuated from the consulate and grounds".

    If that were the case, why did the ambassador and his party GO TO THE CONSULATE WITH THE PURPOSE OF EVACUATING ANY PERSONNEL THERE?

    The attending physician at the ambassador's body's examination concluded that he died from smoke inhalation. This would, if true, seem to corroborate the supposition that the Consulate was ALREADY BURNING before the ambassador's arrival. In any case, nobody, including you and I, know what happened, do we? Conjecture and guessing games do not provide answers.

    Let's face it; the jury is still out on what happened in Benghazi. More will be forthcoming as the inevitable investigation goes on.

    Knee jerk reactionism during a time like this does nothing to get at the truth. By the way, the US flag that was burned in Egypt was flying at half staff at the time, making it's removal and destruction much easier. In any case, it certainly isn't the first time some yahoo's have burned an American flag overseas, or in fact on US soil, and it won't be the last. Should we "intervene", militarily, in Egypt? LOL.

  31. "If that were the case, why did the ambassador and his party GO TO THE CONSULATE WITH THE PURPOSE OF EVACUATING ANY PERSONNEL THERE?"

    To ensure all his employees were safely out and on their way to Tripoli with all the others. That's what leaders do.

    CarmineD

  32. Teamster:

    Many months ago, many, I told you here the path to reelection for Obama was filled with landmines. And if he just steps on one, he's done. This may be the one. And possibly more.

    CarmineD

  33. How strange, Jeffery. I thought, after being told by this President and Admin, that the war on terrorism was over. Obama got Bin Laden and it ended. What happened?

    You're not reading the right news papers and magazine accounts, Jeffery. The press has been filled with the warnings about Libya and the strife, warring, stealing and fear among the people. Including the day it occurred: Tuesday. There is no democratic government there. None. Notta. That's what Ambassador Stevens and his staff were trying to forge.

    The problem is the mainstream media doesn't cover Libya, Jeffery. It will now. Have no choice, NOW. 4 Americans killed.

    Just like mainstream liberal media makes no mention that President Obama only attends 44 percent of his daily security briefings. Bush for all his faults never missed one. Big difference, Jeffery.

    CarmineD

  34. "Carmine:

    Romney had a test of statesmanship and citizenship over this, he, like you, failed.

    And you and me both know it."

    What I and Americans know is that after [like a half day after] Romney's PRESS CONFERENCE on the matter, President Obama finally evacuated all Americans in Bengahzi to Tripoli and sent a contigent of Marines to Tripoli to guarantee their safety. That's what we know.

    CarmineD

  35. "There is a good chance of more American deaths if Romney continues spouting off as recklessly as he has.

    From educated reports it appears that this is a retaliation killing for our killing of 'AL LIBI' (The Lybian). Romney is a kneejerk reactionary buffoon."

    Great foreign policy perspective, Jeffery. Blame us for the murders of the innocent Americans abroad. You're taking lessons from President Obama June 2009 in Cairo Eqypt.

    We're in retreat, Jeffery. We had a coordinated attack against our Consulate in Libya. 4 Americans are dead. Maybe more yet to be. The Muslim militants are watching us. We show weakness, as you and Obama suggest, we lose. They come after us. Why? Look at our weakness with Iran and its insistence on becoming nuclear weapons capable. We talk them to death while Israel's very survival is at stake.

    The threat of terrorism and Muslim violence ALL OVER THE WORLD is real. The recent events in Eqypt and Libya are prima facie evidence. The fight that we were told was over [by Obama and this Amdin] is not. And we need to have a real discussion about it. The discussion that Romney wants and will have.

    CarmineD

  36. "Inside were Stevens, a regional security officer and Sean Smith, an information management officer with the State Department who was also killed. (Overall, the compound had about 25 to 30 people in it.)"

    CarmineD

  37. "By the way, I looked at your comments the last few days, no warning from you there either. Maybe the terrorists kind of have success once in a while and there is little that can be done."

    Really, Jeffery? This is your foreign policy position after the 4 American murders and uprisings throughout the united states of Islam against America.

    Terrorists, Jeffery only have to be right once. The US has to be right 100 percent of the time. Or else.

    How Jeffery, I ask you, how can the US be right 100 percent of the time, when our president attends 44 percent of his intel briefings. And on the very day that the mideast is in turmoil flies off to Las Vegas and Colorado for fund raisers. While our US embassies and diplomatic outposts around the world are under attack and at the risk for violence. Jeffery, answers please.

    Jeffery, you're backing a president that is out to lunch by all accounts when the going gets tough. And you're attacking one who wants to be [Romney] because he [Obama] is.

    There's a not so nice word that is used for you and this dribble. It starts with an 'h' and your first guess is correct.

    CarmineD

  38. Jeffery: Take a cue from Mr. Teamster. When you're wrong keep quiet and only appear to be. Rather than continuing to talk and remove all doubt.

    Teamster, this is the land mind I warned you about months ago on Obama's path to reelection. It just blew and your beloved president is running for cover.

    CarmineD

  39. "You, on the other hand, have gone out of you way to blame the President for these sicko's who killed our neighbors."

    I blame his policies of atonement, appeasement, and apologies with Muslim radicals.

    CarmineD

  40. "It is rather humorous."

    You are a laugh a word. Funnier than the comics but not as interesting to read without the cartoon characters to fill in the words.

    CarmineD

  41. "Carmine (The Joseph Goebbels of Romney/Ryan Nevada) states:

    "Libyans kill 4 Americans on 9-11. Planned attack. US knew it and let its guard down."

    Jeffery:

    I posted this mid day on Sept 12. You scoffed and impugned me with your petty partisan remarks. Latest intel says I was right. What do you say, Jeffery?

    CarmineD