Two envelopes

Hello, Arizona!

Editor:

We moved to Arizona from New York’s Long Island in the summer of 2019 for all the standard reasons: lower taxes, nicer climate and extremely better “bang for your buck” with respect to home value. Being avid target shooters, enjoying our Second Amendment rights here compared to New York has been virtually incomparable.

We are both politically independent and have always voted from our hearts for whomever we felt had the timber to do the job. We’ve been generally impressed with our new home state’s growth and management while understanding that no place can be all things to all people. As I read the letters section, I’m encouraged by the display of opposing views on so many timely topics.

Each of us will ultimately determine what we feel is important for the well being of our own lives on Nov. 3. Some will most assuredly think past themselves for their personally perceived benefit to the state they live in and the country as well as the rest of the entire world. Amazing thing about this country, being able to pull a lever and make your mark count in an election.

We have enjoyed reading your great paper each week keeping us informed about all the happenings in our area, and we thank you for the all encompassing coverage your staff consistently puts together.

We were impressed when Yuma decided against becoming a “Sanctuary City.” Now that we are residents of a border state, we felt that a strong border would enhance the validity for the many people that have been following the path of legally becoming a U.S. citizen. As this type of debate continues, we’re still at a loss about why this process can’t be made more timely and efficient for those who decide to follow the laws as they’re presently written. If a particular candidate feels that our borders should be opened up for anyone to come here from anywhere in the world, we feel it would not be beneficial to Arizona in particular.

Additionally, as we pay $950 each month for my wife’s very good health insurance. If a particular candidate feels that someone entering our country illegally is entitled to free health care, we feel that’s not very fair to us personally.

While I understand that what I’m discussing is a myopically small part of the whole picture, I felt it important to share the thoughts I have because at least for now I’m able to.

Thanks for allowing me to express what I feel matters to us.

Rich Cucharo

Goodyear

Bipartisan thoughts

Editor:

There are three issues I have. First, to show I am bipartisan, the Russian involvement in the 2016 election has been way overblown by cable news. Yes, they spent less than $3 million in Facebook ads, but that is a false equivalency. Our oligarchs Soros, Koch and other dark money sources spend that in one day—not to mention AIPAC, the Israel lobby—all of which have had far more influence on our elections than Russia. HRC and the DNC need to look in the mirror as to why they lost the 2016 election. MSM has a bad habit of omitting important information for our oligarchs—for example, getting rid of money in politics and raising taxes on the 0.01%, both of which have vast majority bipartisan support.

Second, the cost of health care, single payer or Medicare for All; the real-world reality or facts, not speculation. France, which is second to the U.S. in percentage of GDP per capita spent on health care, is just above half of what we spend. One downside to M4A is doctors are not paid as much—still middle class by many standards. With an average of 500,000 a year bankruptcy claims due to medical bills the past 10 years in the U.S., it’s not just a moral obligation—it’s fiscally responsible, too. To be clear, real-world stats, not speculation. Also there are two examples of government-controlled health care: our own VA and the U.K. M4A is a private business funded by the government (single payer), not socialized. Though VA and U.K. have many issues, as does M4A, they are still far better than our insane, employer-based, for-profit health care we currently have. 

Third, corruption. There are many things I absolutely agree with Libertarians on; however, the government being the only threat to our freedoms is historically and unequivocally false. I’ll let Teddy Roosevelt (1913) explain: “There was once a time in history when the limitation of governmental power meant increasing liberty for the people. In the present day the limitation of governmental power, of governmental action, means the enslavement of the people by the great corporations.”

Damion Armstrong

Avondale