As usual, Marcy Kaptur has it exactly backwards. It is not outsourcing that is decimating the middle class, it is in-sourcing - the importing of labor, i.e. immigration.
Leftists like Ms. Kaptur bemoan the low governmental aid the U.S. ships overseas, lecturing us on the moral obligation to help the world's poor, yet then complain when American corporations, the repository of much societal wealth, invest abroad, lifting millions from subsistence.
Blaming 1994's NAFTA for the collapse of the middle class defies the record. Male wages have stagnated since 1973, a mere eight years after the lifting of immigration restrictions.
For the bottom 60 percent of society, income has stagnated since 1979 despite the tripling of female work participation, meaning that, for most of us, it requires two incomes to produce what one income did, this with historically low unemployment and high job creation. Conversely, the top 1 percent has seen its income double.
Supply and demand explains it. The middle class evolved and unionism thrived during the era of restricted labor supply from the 1920s to the 1960s. Even unskilled and semi-skilled job holders earned family-livable wages, jobs that during the previous era of open borders paid poorly. It was the most successful anti-poverty program ever devised.
Opening domestic labor competition to the international marketplace rather than restricting it to a national market guarantees surplus labor at low wages. Massive immigration redistributes wealth from the bottom to the top, something proving as true today as a century ago.
Real liberals from Al Smith to Barbara Jordan and real labor leaders like Sam Gompers opposed anti-worker labor importation, something today's clueless itemized Ivy League ideologues miss.
James Alan Winter
They say that every vote counts. That is unless you consider yourself an Independent voter in Ohio.
I was not allowed to vote last Tuesday because I would not declare being affiliated to the Democratic or Republican Party. Why?
Well the answer is "Because that's the rule and I'm only a volunteer, sorry You can go downtown now (even though it's 6:30 p.m.) and go to 1 Government Center, or call the elections board. Or, you can just vote the issues only."
Well, I went to my precinct to vote on everything. Why should I have to tell anybody which way I vote?
One person called it a misunderstanding of the primary. No, it's not. Why can't you vote unless you pick a party? And why isn't Independent considered valid?
Is that what voting is about now? "Your vote is secret, but it just tells us who you normally vote for before we let you in the booth."
This needs to change. Independent means just what it says. It's not the party. It's the person.
Arthur T. King
The American Heritage Dictionary's description of the word liberal, includes: "a. Not limited to or established by, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded."
I would like to see and truly believe that we need more of this "liberal" type mindset in our government and society today. We need some good ideas and we need them implemented now. Alternate energy sources, elimination of pollutants in our environment, civil communication, and peaceful solutions to world problems - these are the most important issues that need attention.
Not in the next presidential term or the one after that. Now.
To think some consider the word "liberal" to have bad connotations. Liberal thinking is what we desperately need to enrich the future for all mankind.
East Streicher Street
The Blade's April 25 editorial, "Blowing Smoke," shows just how little the newspaper trusts its own readers to make informed decisions about important public policy issues.
Smoke Less Ohio is working to place a common-sense smoking policy on the November ballot to give Ohioans a choice. Our proposal would give voters an alternative to the total ban that would be forced on the hospitality industry by the SmokeFree Ohio proposal.
Under our constitutional amendment, smoking would be banned in public places, but some exemptions would be made for bars, bowling alleys, restaurants with completely separated areas, and other locations that prohibit minors. It is very similar to the common-sense smoking policy that Toledo voters approved after they deemed their total ban too restrictive.
By placing this amendment on the ballot, Ohioans will have a clear choice in what kind of smoking policy they want the state to have. And it's a choice that Ohioans have said they want.
So what is The Blade afraid of? Is it worried that Ohioans would follow the lead of Toledo voters by approving a reasonable proposal?
Is that why it makes exaggerated claims about the number of smoking bans that our proposal would negate? The Blade incorrectly stated that our proposal would do away with 121 local smoking bans. This number is wildly inaccurate.
Of course, The Blade has no concern for the fact that the SmokeFree Ohio initiative would negate many common-sense policies across the state, including Toledo's. A policy that The Blade's own readers approved at the ballot box.
Jacob C. Evans
Smoke Less Ohio
Editor's note: The editorial inadvertently overstated the number of local smoking bans affected, but The Blade stands behind the piece.
I went into the military in 1953 and I took my religion with me. I served four years and, again, my religion was with me. I came home and became a police officer and brought my religion with me.
In all my endeavors. I have taken my religion with me into the courtrooms, city council, and any public buildings I entered. If the ACLU would like to prevent me from going into any public buildings, stand in front of me and try.
I am more than willing to allow them to go into the military and defend this country, but we all know they won't. They don't realize having God to talk to is part of our heritage and neither they nor the Supreme Court is ever going to change this.
We are a country founded on religion and forever will be, in spite of the ACLU and any other milquetoast Americans.
Perhaps I read the article incorrectly concerning the execution of Joseph Clark. I may have mistakenly read that the murderer who shot two men to death and attempted to kill a third victim is being pitied for a purported bungling of his execution and that the family is "moving toward litigation." Is there something wrong with this picture?
His family should be the ones being sued. The only thing wrong with the incident, which their attorney, Alan Konop, described as "horrendous and tragic," is that it took more than 20 years to execute the guy.
Joseph Lewis Clark's execution was "messy," according to ACLU spokesman Jeffery Gamso. What does the ACLU have to say about the deaths of two of Mr. Clark's victims? Does the ACLU have an opinion concerning the pain the victims family and friends have endured? My heartfelt prayers go out to them for that enduring pain they have experienced over the last 22 years. This execution will not provide closure. Nothing does. However, Mr. Clark got exactly what he deserved. May his soul rest in peace.