Off The Editor’s Desk – 7-2-2014

I think that the Dunn County Board must have too much time and money in its hand to discuss and approve placing two referendum questions on the November Ballot. Two questions that carry no weight.

 First they would ask the state to accept federal funding for Medicaid/BadgerCare to one hundred percent of the cost. At present it is 60 percent federal and the other 40 percent is state money. The resolution passed by the Dunn County Board stated that the state could save $495 million. Tom Quinn, board member from Downing, is right in his statement that the state sends more money to the federal government than it gets back. But, the state gets more bangs for its buck than the federal government. I would estimate that if the feds would pick up that $495, it would cost an extra $100 million and its all our tax money.

The other question is about amending the constitution to state that only human beings, not corporations, unions and non-profits are endowed with constitutional rights.

I know many people believe that corporations are evil and that unions have outlived their usefulness. But what are they? I think they are people bound together for a common cause. As for corporation they are individuals coming together as stockholders to provide a product or service. Sure, some corporations may have a million stockholders, but others like LLCs may have only one or a couple of stockholders. Maybe the county board should fall into this group.

To me, it looks like this is just a method of trying to silence some voices that disagree with the powers that be. I would urge the voters of Dunn County to reject these two referendums.

On other note, I received a clipping from a newspaper in Idaho from our friend, Dan Knoebel. It is a letter to the editor written by Joseph J. Dewey of Boise. He writes about global warming. His words hit the nail on the head.

“Those in power who seek to scare the uneducated over an impending doom due to climate change say they want to save the planet, but their actions testify to the contrary.

How can this be?

Because they fight any energy source or breakthrough that has a chance of making a real reduction in CO2.

Nuclear energy has saved us from pumping over 28 billions tons of CO2 (many times that of wind and solar together) into the atmosphere in a 60-year period, yet most alarmists fight it tooth and nail.

Natural gas has saved over 25 billion tons over coal yet alarmists show up protesting fracking.

Hydro may be the cleanest of all, yet this bunch wants to tear down the dams.

Electric cars are now available, but most alarmists drive gas-guzzlers and the wealthy ones fly without concern in private jets. Al Gore’s carbon footprint for just one of his mansions is about 20 times average.

What can we conclude from this? This bunch really isn’t concerned about saving the planet at all, but have another agenda which is to use global warming as an excuse to impose their political agenda on us.”

Thanks for reading. — Carlton