.png)
To the editor, We need more people in a legislature who can look at both sides of the issues that are facing Idaho. Karen Matthee is that person. She is respectful of other views but knows what matters.
She supports schools and libraries. She is in favor of raising the minimum wage to a level that would make Idaho’s workers able to cover basic needs such as food, housing and transportation.
Let’s give her a chance to turn Idaho around with common sense and respect.
Vote Karen Matthee for Idaho State Legislature.
-Susan Bates-Harbuck Sandpoint
The risks of war mongering
To the editor, Most of the media coverage surrounding the recent worldwide stock market crash attributes the cause for panic to an “imminent recession” as evidenced by the recent US jobs report. (Many believe we have already been in a recession for some time.) Jeff Childers, a Florida lawyer and blogger, points out that not all stocks crashed; stocks of war-related industries rose substantially, including Raytheon, Northrup Grumman and General Dynamics.
Indeed, the current Administrative “Team” (which may or may not include President Biden, who knows?) seems intent on involving our country in wars all over the planet. It’s as if they are desperate to trigger WWIII. Why? How would the powers-that-shouldn’tbe benefit from a potentially hot worldwide war?
It could kill a lot of people, more quickly meeting the globalists’ depopulation goals, the better to control us. Check.
The war industries and their shareholders would get fabulously rich while the rest of us survivors stand in food ration lines for months on end. Check.
The US could be destabilized to the extent that marshal law is declared, extending the power of those on the “Team” who unconstitutionally grabbed that power. Check.
A world war could potentially throw many other countries into chaos, allowing the globalists to wrest control over their resources and populations, toward which they have been stealthily maneuvering over many decades. (Read how the UN’s flowery-sounding “Sustainability” Goals and the International “Health” Regulations are actually implemented.) Check.
The Administrative “Team” appears happy to spend money we don’t have to put the lives of our troops at risk to defend any other country’s borders and quality of life than our own. It’s as if they work for the globalists rather than We the People.
Putting “America First” now sounds like a rather sane antidote to me!
-Kamori Cattadoris Newport
Support your candidate rather than tearing down others
To the editor, Week after week I read opinion letters in the Miner from the same couple folks that repeat the same theme. Trump bad, hate Trump, Trump’s a traitor, Trump was a bad President, etc. etc.
If this was true I believe they should present some evidence instead of just a tainted tirade. When they call Trump names I don’t think they realize they are doing the same to at least half of America.
Instead of wasting space in the paper, how about just listing all the accomplishments of the people they support (Kamala Harris) and let us decide who has done a better job, not what MSNBC says.
Let me offer some topics in case they can’t think of any.
1. Inflation Reduction Act 2. Energy 3. Gas Prices 4. EV sales 5. Support for Israel 6. Afghanistan withdrawal 7. Southern border Invasion 8. Food prices 9. The record of her VP pick. Hopefully they will respond. Kamala hasn’t so far.
-K.C. Hunt Newport
Initiatives on Washington ballot have to be voted down
To the editor, One of six initiatives introduced by Republican-allied group Let’s Go Washington, Initiative 2081 gave parents and legal guardians of public school children under 18 years old certain rights, including to examine textbooks, curriculum, and any supplemental materials used in their children’s classrooms. Although that’s innocent language in normal times, the 2024 Democratic-majority state Legislature was understandably suspicious of Republican motives. So they passed a similar parental “bill of rights” that removed the initiative from the upcoming November election. Two other initiatives were Legislature-handled similarly.
So three of the initiatives remain for November voters: Initiative 2117 prohibiting carbon tax credit trading; Initiative 2124 allowing individuals to opt out of paying the tax for long-term health care; and Initiative 2109 repealing the capital gains tax imposed on gains over $250,000. All must be defeated, especially the one repealing the capital gains tax that funds all-important early-childhood education.
Recent uptick in the school parental rights movement has largely been driven by banning books and dictating teachers’ curricula, including eliminating unpleasant aspects of our racial history.
But students, particularly the most mature at high school and college level, generally oppose these actions. They want books covering a range of subjects and the whole truth from their history classes. Even organized student protests have occurred along these lines.
When educator Cory DeAngelis says, “Now kids have a union of their own – their parents,” he errs. Indeed, it is just the opposite: kids deserve their own union that opposes anti-education efforts characteristic of the parental rights movement.
-Norm Luther Spokane
Republican budget proposal included cuts to Social Security
To the editor, Social Security is a partial source of my income. I don’t trust the MAGA/GOP political party to protect Social Security (SS). Despite Trump’s claims since 2016 that he won’t cut SS, each of his proposed budgets while in office included cuts to the program. In March 2024, Trump said there was a lot that could be done to entitlement, including cuts. He has since said he will not cut one cent, but we know that Trump is a consistent liar.
Don’t be fooled. What Trump and Republicans call “protecting” social security, is actually slashing your benefits by increasing the full retirement age of social security.
A 2025 Republican Study Committee (RSC) budget proposal included significant cuts to social security. One continually included proposal is to increase the full retirement age (FRA) from 67 to 69. A Center for American Progress analysis (https:// ampr.gs/4chdY8R) shows this one change would cut benefits for new retirees by up to 14.3% annually, or, thousands of dollars every year. Over 10 years and with COLAs taken into account, a mid-wage worker could lose up to $100K in benefits. This doesn’t even take into account the ability of a worker in a physically demanding job to make it to 67, much less 69, for retirement.
Those turning 62 before 2027 would be shielded from this proposed change. The rest? Too bad. Nearly 3 in 4 Americans, or about 245 million people, would be affected.
-Lisa Wolfe Kettle Falls
