Ron Paul is running from his past
Representative Ron Paul, (M.D.) is apparently running for President of the United States but equally running from his past _ a sorry past of racism, homophobia and a nasty touch of anti-Semitism, all of which rings of a person who enriches his (political) life at the expense of others. Not the attributes one expects from a pillar of the community (a stamp deservedly granted to physicians), certainly not a person who should be taken seriously for the highest office in the land and the leader of the free world. Yet, there he is, somehow convincing a Republican constituency that his past is the past and the new Ron Paul is not the person behind the curtain as in Frank Morgan in "The Wizard of Oz." But unlike Mr. Morgan, who came clean to Dorothy (and the skittish 1939 viewers in a world on the brink of war), Mr. Paul has yet to address these serious issues that go to the core of his character and how he would govern.
Perhaps those who are encouraging his advancement in politics, those who think it's proper to speak of equality for only some and justice for the well-connected, should reconsider their anachronistic positions and seek a more-serious candidate. Someone who really believes in upholding an oath after it's taken and the crowds are gone (like physicians). Someone who doesn't abuse his freedom of speech to rabble-rouse others to causes of hate and fear-mongering, and then recoil to the incredulous safe haven of saying it was someone else's thoughts on his letterhead.
Libertarianism is supposed to be about personal accountability. I see very little of that in Ron Paul.
Timothy Patrick Gibson
Oneonta
Payroll tax cut voters are gullible
The headlines in the Dec. 23 issue of The Daily Star, regarding the payroll tax cut show just how gullible voters really are. Mr. McLain, a tax accountant, truly put the average saving of $20 per paycheck in its true applied use when he stated: "People wouldn't be able to go out for lunch or buy alcohol." The present administration in its zeal to garner votes for next year's election has no problem buying votes by throwing around money it doesn't have. The money comes in the form of 2 percent less being put into Social Security coffers by all working Americans. The watchdog groups sounded the alarm less than a year ago that Social Security would be running low of funds in the near future. So my question is, just how much sooner is this going to happen now that we seem bent on trying to repeat it for a second year? The live for today and worry about tomorrow when it comes lifestyle doesn't play well in the real world, and will come back to bite you in the future when you have to retire and rely on Social Security and they tell you that you can get 75 percent instead of 100 percent because there is no money. When this happens, ask President Barack Obama how he turned the $1,000 average tax cut into $40 in every paycheck, which is double what the math works out to be but looks great to voters going out to lunch and buying alcohol!
Edward V. Dawyot
Mount Vision
