AWOL Wisconsin legislators have no excuse Re: “Republicans were the obstructionists three months ago,” From Readers, Feb. 27
It’s one thing for a minority party in a legislature to work for the outcome most favorable to them within the rules of parliamentary procedure, even if that means being “obstructionist.” It’s quite another for them to literally flee the state and abdicate their job responsibilities, chief among which is to show up for work.
Instead of doing their best with the electoral hand they were dealt, Wisconsin Senate Democrats have chosen to knock over the whole card table. Their behavior is irresponsible and indefensible.
Matthew McMahon
Germantown
GOP wants to gut laws, not balance the budget
Re: “Believe it or not, it’s morning in America, again,” Editorial, Feb. 27
As the head swim coach of a U.S. national team that will compete in Portugal this summer, no one is more enthusiastic about American greatness than I. But to shroud patriotism with inaccurate facts is irresponsible.
Whatever one might say about the House Republican effort to balance the budget, there is clearly no momentum behind the several hundred extraneous policy riders that were attached to the House spending bill in the bogus name of “balancing the budget.”
These riders were literally a wish list of industry polluter demands, including attacks on the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Equal Access to Justice Act, and hazardous waste law. Not only would these provisions hurt Americans’ health, but they would also cost the federal government more money in the long run.
The Senate and president are right to reject them. When the new House leadership stops overreaching and actually implements fiscal responsibility on the corporate sponsors that endorsed them for office, then we will know a new dawn has risen. Until then, the House effort reeks of hypocrisy.
William J. Snape
Washington
First Amendment also covers blogging
Re: “Teacher suspended over blog comments,” Feb. 16
The U.S. Supreme Court, in addressing the issue of government jobs and free speech, ruled in the cases of Connick v. Myers and Waters v. Churchill that government employees have free speech to the extent that the speech “does not interfere with the efficiency of government operation.”
As in the case of Shirley Sherrod in the Department of Agriculture, it is not clear from your article whether Natalie Munroe, that high-school English teacher in Pennsylvania, was proven by her employing government entity to have substantially interfered with the efficiency of its operation through her speech.
The government’s case is flimsy at best if all it can say is that the speech in either instance is boorish, embarrassing, vulgar, or even “politically incorrect.” The First Amendment protects unpopular speech.
If we are to remain true to the Declaration of Independence’s proposition that our rights come from God and not from government, and that all men are created equal, we cannot also accede to the proposition that acceptance of any employment requires employees to check their First Amendment rights at the employer’s front doorstep.
Lawrence K. Marsh
Gaithersburg
