to the editor from this week's Chronicle:
April 23, 2015
A new venture! Decades ago, in the early 1980's, a title LET FREEDOM
RING came to me one evening, and for the next couple of years I submitted
a weekly column to the Chronicle, and now and then to other newspapers
in the area. My idea then was to submit a topic of interest each week,
freedom, taxes, inflation, etc. in the hope that a discussion might follow
which would be of interest to the reader!
Well, LET FREEDOM RING as a title is out, since it has been adopted
by Sean Hannity of Fox News, and I care not to get into a copyright battle
with that conservative heavy weight! But again I have the urge to launch
a few thoughts of my own on matters of current interest, and since I am
now approaching the venerable age of 80 years, it seems to me that RED
NECK REVIEW might be an appropriate title for the ramblings of a soon to
be very old man like myself! What does the title mean? In future weeks
a definition or two will be thrown the way of the reader!
The topic for this week is SB 1067 which relates to state and federal
involvement in forcing out of state or country individuals to pay child
support. The federal government is involved, because Idaho and other
states who do not go along lose millions of federal dollars to support
the effort, and also federal data banks to help in the effort. Idaho will
lose a total of $36 million to be used for support workers and for temporary
assistance for needy families. In addition to these totals, quoted from
Rep. John McCrostie in a letter to the editor to the Idaho County Free
Rep. McCostie hints that another "$200,000,000" in child support could
I have a problem with SB 1067. First of all, it requires that we sign
an agreement with foreign
countries involved in the 2007 Hague Convention on the International
Recovery of Child Support. Thus it forces Idaho to cooperate with a foreign
law. And anyone my age knows that innocent sounding proposals in the beginning
stages always come back with a vengeance to haunt one later. I cite for
example our own federal government involvement in education. Prior to 1960,
no federal aid of any significance was available to states, and a person
could attend four year colleges and universities for a mere $1000 or less.
This included even many private schools.
Now the same schools range from $10,000 to $40,000, and we are told
that the average graduate now leaves college owing an average of $35,000.
And any reader of a daily newspaper certainly is up to date on the controversy
the federal Common Core curriculum is causing today. All of it resulting
from a federal involvement in education which at the time was sold with
"subsidy seduction," offering federal money to local states and school
districts. And, "Oh No!" we were told at the beginning! There will be no
federal mandates with the help offered! Yeah, right!
This leads to my second gripe! Programs proposed at the beginning are
always couched in rosy words with funds attached, the funds the carrot
handed out to get an unsuspecting recipient to take a bite and accept the
program. But experience and common sense dictate that first comes the carrot
and the funds, then later comes the rules and regulations. Most of which
we do not like and would be better off without!
Read Rep. McCrostie' letter to the Grangeville Free Press last week,
and you can see he is again beating the drum for "the money!" Well, John,
take the money now, and I will confidently predict that we will rue the
day we did it in the future. With the money, comes the strings attached,
and our freedom to do it our way is not the price we should be willing
to pay. Besides, is it not a slap in the face to suggest that we cannot
take care of problems like this by ourselves? I know my answer to this
question! What is yours?
Template Design by: