When faced with complex social problems, the tendency is to find a scapegoat — usually the victim at the receiving end of the social problem. That is what Charles Lane does in his Oct. 20 commentary, "Doubling down on the wrong housing policy," on the housing crisis. First he blames homeowners for the collapse of the housing market, then claims we have "glorified" home ownership.

No blame at all goes to the financial institutions that lent mortgages at 5 to 10 times the annual incomes of people, while their agents deceived them with small print and outright lies into inappropriate mortgages. If we care about providing moderate-income families opportunities for economic success, we should, as a matter of public policy, encourage people to acquire assets that grow in value over time.

A home is the biggest appreciating asset most of us will ever own. Home equity is the largest single source of household wealth for most Americans. Median net wealth for homeowners is almost $80,000; for renters it's about $2,000.


It's on the house

Imagine walking into a casino, asking managers for $500,000 for gambling, telling them to give you 3-to-1 odds on all of your bets, and that the remaining customers must absorb the cost of your winnings. Sound far fetched? Not really, when you consider the developing health care "public option."

In sum, the government will use tax dollars (house money) to structure a health care insurance company, set prices without regard to the disciplines of a competitive market place, and thus force us to accept the single-payer system because our insurance companies will no longer be willing or able to sell health care insurance at an increasing loss.

Our freedom of choice will be destroyed, and we will have to accept whatever the government offers.

P.S. The "quality of remaining years" system that determines health care for seniors was part of the earlier stimulus bill.


Competition with limits

Republican opposition (with notable exceptions) to eliminating the health insurance industry exemption from anti-trust laws reveals Republican hypocrisy in obstructing meaningful health insurance reform. They have presented the idea of competition across state lines as a nostrum for high premiums, but the natural consequence of such interstate competition — federal regulation — seems an anathema to them.

Apparently, they would like an interstate competition that would promote a race to the bottom whereby the state with the weakest regulations will set the national standard, allowing the health insurance industry to ride roughshod over consumers even more brutally than they do now. Do we really want to perpetuate a regime in which corporate bureaucrats tell us when we can and cannot have necessary treatments? We should allow interstate competition among health insurance companies, but also require reasonable accountability, so that a few enormous companies will not eventually dominate.


Gov't-sanctioned killing

It's not inconceivable for any public (government) option plan to implement "death panels" for grandma and grandpa at some future date. Congressional liberals subscribe to and believe in the theory of evolution. Darwin's basic principle is survival of the fittest. Theoretically speaking, if grandma and grandpa are not fit, they should be put out to pasture. The government would benefit by not having to provide health care or Social Security payments.

Follow the money, as Democrats always say. If you think this is far-fetched, the congressional liberals have already approved the abortion murder of 51 million babies. Grandma and grandpa would just be collateral damage.


Capitalist 'buy back'

After an initially negative reaction to our federal government's new hybrid capitalism-socialism system, I am beginning to see the merit. It just needs to be generalized to the entire interaction between government and those begging for help. Instead of giving earmarks, subsidies and tax breaks each time some outfit begs for taxpayers' largess, the government (on our behalf) takes an equitable stake in the outfit. When the recipient has saved up the amount of the stake, they can buy back the government's share and be back on the capitalistic side of the ledger. This could even work for federally funded state and local projects as well. Reciprocity rocks!


State budget blues

As one who is directly involved in services for the neediest of our community, I am appalled at the proposed cuts in human services and Medicaid. Once again our elected leaders have failed to learn that cutting these funds does result in the disappearance of our neediest citizens. People and their children do not suffer homelessness, domestic violence, mental illness, poor to nonexistent health care, illiteracy, and joblessness willingly, and they deserve the best help we can provide. In the absence of legislative and community commitment to those who need our help, we will stand and watch the downward spiral of lives that might have turned upward with the aid our taxes are meant to provide. Those of us who know those lives by name will grieve, and keep asking each other for nonexistent solutions.




I just read the latest scare headline about budget cuts potentially leading to prison closures. Maybe if education, child and family services and mental health support systems were funded to appropriate levels, the prisons wouldn't need to be built in the first place.




I think a great way to save about $20 million in operating expense subsidy from the state would be to mothball the Railrunner for a year and run express buses with the same capacity at the peak commute times to and from the same stations on the same schedule for people who are using the train for their daily commute.

The Railrunner people should know the times they have full cars, and perhaps we should offer buses at those times for a while. Buses are far less expensive to operate, would be quicker, and offer scalability and new routes without new infrastructure if demand grows.

I am all for mass transit; and I think we have the opportunity to move the same number of people at lower expense faster, and with more direct routes, with Park-n-rides and buses.

Why take economical option off the table?

In his Oct. 18 guest commentary, "Say yes to Aamodt deal," attorney Larry White indicated that the acequias he represents "unanimously support the Aamodt settlement." Not so.

Being a mayordomo of one of those acequias, I cannot support the proposed settlement because no one has adequately answered the following question: With the cost of the proposed system approaching $300 million, why have lawyers involved in the case been unwilling to consider the cheaper pueblos-only alternative to supply the pueblos with the water due them and leave non-pueblo users alone.

Only 1 percent of the well owners in the area have said they would sign up for the system. The cost of operating the system will have to be borne by uninvolved taxpayers in perpetuity because the few that sign up for it can't pay the ongoing operating costs. It's irresponsible for our representatives to pursue the current settlement knowing the huge cost of the system will fall on the backs of the taxpayers.




Why wasn't the development of the Aamodt settlement handled with greater transparency and involvement of the community, saving everyone involved time and money? Now we find ourselves with a proposal that has very little community support, doesn't make economic sense and is fraught with many unanswered questions regarding water rights, system design and installation, initial cost, cost of operation, water quality and ultimate ownership.

Who's going to pay for the construction, operation and maintenance of the system? The few who have signed up for it couldn't possibly fund it. Are taxpayers outside the area willing to have their tax money go toward funding the system? Why isn't the proposed system to serve only the pueblos being considered, when it makes such economic sense? Why won't the masters of this settlement acknowledge hydrology indicating that the water used by well owners in the area in question is so low and the supply so great that the system is not needed?