Disagreeing shouldn’t be labeled
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
Whatever happened to the notion of men sitting and discussing important issues without slinging mud by attaching inappropriate or offensive labels to those who may disagree with them?
Because I and others oppose the CSKT compact for various reasons, we are labeled “anti-government” or “anti-Indian.” What is meant by the term “anti-government” and “anti-Indian?” What does disagreeing with a person have to do with their ethnicity? Should anyone who disagrees with government policy or law on a specific issue at any time be considered “anti-government?” Don’t we all, at one time or another, disagree with a government policy or a specific law? Doesn’t that make all of us “anti-government” at one time or another?
Do those who use the term consider these “anti-government” individuals to be anarchists who are against any and all laws? A pretty serious charge, as some would consider anarchy as treasonous. Must one remain silent when government violates its God ordained or constitutional boundaries?
Regarding the tens (or hundreds) of millions of state and federal dollars supposedly attached to the compact that proponents tout as a reason to embrace it, I will remind you that this is not “free” money. While I understand that repairs to the irrigation project are needed, consider the following:
• Who should pay? The federal government? Approaching $18 trillion in debt ... just add it to the bill for our children and grandchildren? Really?
• In the last legislative session, the compact bill contained $50 million in state dollars. Why?
If these state and federal dollars come through, all state and federal taxpayers are being required to pay. Are we really OK with requiring folks to contribute to a project that does not directly benefit them and in which they have no vote?
Scott Kerr
Moiese
