THE DAILY STANDARD welcomes letters to the editor. Letters will be edited for length and clarity and must include the writer’s name, city, and state.
*1*
Fred Barnes has every right to feel pleased for the GOP (Republicans on a Roll). It has been a good run for them. When Republicans can collect 62 percent of the votes in California and 55 percent in Mississippi, something is going right.
There is one thing that is worrisome and that is the violent antipathy of the conservative Republicans for the kind of Republicans who can carry places like California. In fact, we already knew that Bush will carry Mississippi and Kentucky in 2004 and whoever the Democrat is (even Dean), he will carry California, Arnie or no Arnie. In other words, the Republicans are on a roll, but whether or not the principles espoused by the Republican conservatives are also on a roll is another question altogether.
–S.G. Briggs
*2*
As much as I generally agree with Larry Miller, he’s off base in Look for the Union Label. Everyone seems to agree that the major issue between the UFCW (the supermarket worker’s union)and the grocery chains is that the stores want to shift some (but at this point not much) of the health care costs to the employees. The UCFW argues that this is an unconscionable, camel’s-nose-in-the-tent ploy to eventually unfairly shift all health care costs to employees.
This argument would be easier to take seriously if not for the fact that the UFCW itself has told its own employees that it will be shifting health care costs to employees and retirees.
Specifically, in the Newspaper Guild, UFCW unit’s newsletter for Fall, 2003 (available at here ), the UFCW’s own employees report that “UFCW confirmed at employee meetings October 1 and 2 that it is cost shifting health care costs to employees and retirees.” According to the newsletter, “employees with fewer than 20 years will pay 50 percent of their retiree health premium, which currently totals a whopping $993/month.” The newsletter goes on to report that the “UFCW confirmed that there might well be more changes, stating that retiree health is not a guaranteed benefit” and “implying that it could be taken away entirely.”
I’m not saying that the union is especially hypocritical about this–they’re hypocritical, of course, but no more so than anyone else–health care (like lunch) is always dirt cheap when someone else is picking up the tab. It’s only when we pay our own way that costs start to sting.
–Bruce Telles
*3*
I would tell Noemie Emery (Loving the Bush Haters) that when faced with life’s most difficult choices, she should ask herself the following:
(1) Which choice will annoy the French the most?
(2) Which choice will drive the emasculated public radio commentator into lisping seizures?
(3) Which choice will cause my tolerant college roommate with the “Celebrate Diversity” T-shirt to take a swing at me?
I must admit that I had my doubts about Bush even after the election. Even now, I cannot say that he consistently instills confidence in the right people. But I do take solace in the fact that he annoys the living hell out of all the wrong people.
–Dave Shelpuk
*4*
Despite the fear that I’ll sound like Lumbergh from the movie “Office Space”: Yeah, uh, I’m going to have to, um, go ahead and disagree with Larry on this one.
Nothing makes me angrier than union workers who think they have a “right” to special working privileges. Every year, my out-of-pocket insurance contribution goes up. So does my employer’s. Insurance costs rise every year and that is just the way it is. Our insurance used to cost the employees nothing. Now it costs me $90 a month. Did I go on strike because of it? Hell no. It is what it is.
Thank God Texas is a right-to-work state. I would hate to think that my entire consumer life would have to be planned around the whims of big union bosses. Unions are like a welfare system for workers. “Hey, folks, don’t like your pay raise? Think the mean ol’ company is screwing you? Go on strike! By the way, your union dues are now 25 percent of your paycheck . . .”
We have Albertson’s grocery stores here and I know all the employees are here “at will.” That means they have no contract regarding employment–they are free to quit and the company is free to fire them (while abiding by the umpteen thousand federal laws and agencies regarding employment). If the bagger on lane 12 balks at his 50 cent raise, he is free to go work somewhere else.
–Adam Smith
*5*
It appears the realignment predicted in “The Emerging Republican Majority” is occurring across the nation and the two recent Republican gubernatorial victories provide further evidence.
However, perhaps there is more to this issue than just an ideologically conservative America. Perhaps the recent growth in Republican influence could be attributed to a more liberal agenda adopted by the party. The president had a chance to stand strong against affirmative action and didn’t. Likewise, the prescription drug giveaway. Lastly, who could forget the disaster of the education bill that the president co-sponsored with Ted Kennedy.
Now don’t get me wrong: the president has done great things–two tax cuts, excellence in execution of the war on terrorism, and the recent ban on partial birth abortion. But is this a realignment of America or of the Republican party? Or both?
–Joshua Van Buskirk
*6*
Hugh Hewitt’s Up in Smoke deserves comment:
*It was permissive land use policies that have led to suburbanization of fire-prone areas, not environmental regulations, which are largely responsible for the recent California wildfires (in combination with government policies that subsidize the risks taken by these homeowners).
*Because of budgetary constraints, government hasn’t had adequate funding to remove excessive brush from fire-prone areas, and suburbanites have led the opposition to cheaper controlled burning because of noxious smells and perceived dangers. Also, natural burns have been suppressed to protect their property values.
*Species protection in critical habitat areas have minimized development of fire-prone areas and potential for loss of life and property.
–Michael Armstrong
*7*
In response to Larry Miller’s article on unions and the grocery strike, I’ll simply say this:
If I was down in California I’d make a point of going to Ralphs, Albertson’s, or Vons every single day, even if it was for a chocolate bar or a pack of gum.
–Bruce Korol
*8*
I agree with Larry Miller. I have visited the Vons in my area at least five times a week. I have gotten to know the staff very well. About nine months ago my son started working there and has had a wonderful experience.
One important fact that goes unreported is the issue of pensions. The companies are also trying to change the eligibility for them. One person who has been with Vons for 27 years told me she is eligible for pension at her 30 year anniversary. The company is now trying to change that as well: She will have to work an additional six years to get the same pension.
–Larry Gerlach
*9*
I thought I was in the matrix and Neo was Jesus comin’ for to take me home. Jonathan V. Last is telling me that’s not true (The Matrix: Exposed). He took the blue pill. That’s his problem.
–Emerson Gover
*10*
In the confused scene at the end of “Revolutions,” “The Matrix” trilogy, with all of its grandness and coolness and potential meaning, turns out to be nothing more than a spat between two divorced parents. What a bust.
–Michael Scott
