Letters to the Editor

Obama's duplicity makes Americans uneasy

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

The recent editorial, "Broken promises: Signing of the Times," on President Obama's recent signing statement accurately conveys the hypocrisy in his claim that signing statements are "a clear abuse of power," considering he still used one to pass the defense bill.

It was the Obama administration that asked to remove the provision protecting American citizens from indefinite detention. Carl Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, directly stated that "it was the administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee … we removed it at the request of the administration. It was the administration which asked us to remove the very language the absence of which is now objected to."

This language was allegedly objected to by Obama, yet he still signed this bill, consequentially violating the Fifth Amendment. He blatantly contradicted his administration's true intentions when he affirmed that his administration "will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation." It is no wonder why the apprehension of Americans is clearly derived from this duplicity of action.

The extremes the president is willing to take in regards to the war on terror makes it seem as if the Constitution is obsolete, as well as the rights and privileges of the American citizens.

Miranda Creasey.

Chesterfield.

How many guns are enough?

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

A recent edition of your newspaper featured a story on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords resignation from Congress due to the effects of a bullet wound from the gun of mentally ill person who was able to purchase a handgun. Several pages later in that same edition was an account of a Hanover teenager who was killed by a gun in the hands of another teen. And on yet another page, was a list of laws advancing in the General Assembly to make guns more accessible with less checks on who is buying them.

Ironic? No, tragic. Reuters reported that in 2007 there were almost 90 guns for every 100 men, women and children in our country. Virginia legislators, how many more guns do we need, and at what cost?

Mark Sprowl.

Mechanicsville.

It is time to get out of Dodge

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

I wonder when I'll be able to get a street vendor's permit to sell guns from a corner cart.

I wonder if they'll take me back in Massachusetts. The statue of limitations on living in Virginia may have run out.

Marianne Dispersio.

Richmond.

Set up insurance exchange quickly

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

After reading Michael Martz's news article, "Should Virginia Act or Wait?" regarding the likelihood that the General Assembly will move forward on a health insurance exchange in this session, I can only hope political posturing doesn't trump the best interests of Virginia consumers this time.

Consumers and small businesses here have long struggled for leverage in a lopsided market that has traditionally favored a small group of insurers. The exchange will help change that with a central, transparent, user-friendly marketplace where multiple insurers offer competing plans with a standard package of essential benefits. Locating the exchange in a quasi-governmental structure, as recommended by the Governor's own advisory council, will promote its independence and consumer focus.

The benefits of the exchange to Virginians of all political stripes outweigh short-term political strategy and partisan orthodoxy. Failing to move forward with the exchange in this session will result in the loss of critical preparedness, and risk the loss of federal planning funds and control of the exchange.

If left to the Governor's discretion, the timetable for implementing the exchange would be never. While the Supreme Court can require him to act, it's disappointing that the interests of ordinary Virginians don't carry that weight. Let's hope the General Assembly sees it differently.

Jim Lindsay.

Arlington.

Every voter should pay something in taxes

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

If fairness is important, we should ask the 47 percent of Americans who currently are not paying federal income tax to contribute to the costs of conducting government.

They have the power to vote. To be fair, they should have the responsibility to pay for the consequences of their votes.

Mark Upton.

Richmond.