My response to your March 31 editorial "Canada's Vote" is that parliamentary government might be the answer to our nation's deepening dilemmas. In parliamentary government, a no-confidence vote against the ruling party or coalition results in parliament being dissolved. All representatives go home and announce their stand on the issues. The opposition takes its position. In a month or two, there is an election.
I and many Americans would love to have had a national vote on the war in Iraq. Our politicians don't have to respond. A parliamentary system provides a viable way to remove people from office. It's a term limit, which lessens lobbyists' influence on policy decisions, and reduces campaign spending. It forces our politicians to be more focused on their constituency, rather than the money.
It would result in short, sweet campaigns — 60 to 90 days — and save a ton of selfishly directed funds. Politicians likely would be defined by their true colors — conservative, laborite, liberal, libertarian, moderate, socialist, etc.
Besides, what in the heck is a Demlican or a Republicrat?
If we had parliamentary government, we might not be in Iraq or Afghanistan, or have this monstrous deficit. Maybe some bankers, who contributed millions to the 2008 election, might not be enjoying one of the world's biggest "Get Out Of Jail Free" cards.
I dream, of course, but it would be nice if, just once, everyone in our Congress had to state their position the day before we went to the polls.
Republicrats blur major party lines
Can someone explain the difference between Republicans and Democrats to me? During the reign of the evil George Bush the cries from the Democrats about the torture of combatants by means of waterboarding was deafening.
Yet on March 19, Mr. Obama unleashed an unprovoked attack on the nation of Libya and killed thousands of people with hundreds of Tomahawk cruise missiles. Collateral damage? Who cares? We are trying to prevent the supposed slaughter of innocents in the city of Benghazi. It's not torture when you can vaporize your opponent. Clean and simple.
At this moment, thousands of innocents are being slaughtered by Ivory Coast's illegitimate president. Where's the United Nations Security Council vote on this one? Pity the Ivory Coast. It has no oil.
Republicrats aren't concerned with these matters.
Average taxpayers sacrifice the most
The GOP is in charge and because Republicans created the deficit during the Bush years, they now plan to cut costs on the backs of the middle class, seniors, and the poor.
The wealthiest Americans and Congress will not have to sacrifice with the rest of us.
The GOP doesn't care if tax cuts for the wealthy, which add to the deficit, continue with no way to pay for them.
Media reports say soldiers won't be paid, but members of Congress will. Health-care costs will go up for seniors, yet members of Congress are not willing to pay for their own health care.
Once again, taxpayers get the shaft. Medicare will change under GOP leadership. What do members of Congress care? It doesn't affect them.
Tell the GOP that the position of God is filled. Republicans complain about President Obama's health-care plan, yet they made it mandatory for every senior on Medicare to sign up for the Medicare prescription plan.
The plan gives pharmaceutical companies an advantage through the doughnut hole, where seniors pay full price for prescriptions but still have to pay the monthly fee for their plan.
To lead, Republicans must be willing to make the same sacrifices they ask of us.
Members of Congress need to take a pay freeze or cut, and pay part of their health-care benefit costs. Enough with the chest-pounding and partisanship.
Food editor serves up fresh approach
I love to read articles by Blade food editor Daniel Neman. With all the bad news on the other pages, his humor and fresh approach to food and drink give me a lift.
Don't let him go to France to write about all those creamy creations for which the French are famous. Keep him in Toledo.
Parents pay twice for private school
In response to the April 4 Readers' Forum letter "School vouchers just wrong": It's the reasoning of the writer that's wrong.
I paid for public schools with my taxes whether or not my children attended them. Then I paid again for the Catholic school that my children did attend. Why can't I take my money and earmark it for the school that I choose?
The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law infringing the free exercise of religion. By taking my education money and prohibiting me from using it for the religious school of my choice, the state is infringing on my free exercise of religion.
Catholic schools have long been recognized as providing a superb education in all areas for less money and to children of all religions, races, and ethnic groups.
Catholic schools were integrated long before public schools were, since the first school was established in the 18th century.
Catholic schools have developed millions of responsible, patriotic, altruistic, and well-educated citizens, in the United States and around the world.
Cynthia Millen Roberts
What are motives of Texas investors?
Why hasn't The Blade investigated the motives of Q Investments of Texas, Cedar Fair's largest investors? Why is it adamant about restructuring Cedar Fair?
Over the past 25 years, Cedar Fair CEO Richard Kinzel, a Toledo native, took a regionally popular amusement park and turned it into an internationally known powerhouse in the amusement and entertainment industry.
How can an investment firm from Texas begin to understand northwest Ohio's economic free-fall, which Mr. Kinzel has had to face the past several years?
Cedar Point has had a positive effect on local economies in large part because of his leadership. Sandusky residents, especially, have benefited and should be thankful.
Congress doesn't deserve its perks
The idiots in Washington have proposed that by 2030, I will have to pay for 68 percent of my Medicare coverage ("Report: GOP plan would raise seniors' health costs," April 7).
If I am still alive, I probably will not be able to work because I will be 85.
This proposal comes from people who have top-notch health-care benefits and pay little or nothing for them.
Members of Congress should start paying for their health insurance. Take away all their perks and cut their salaries to reflect what the average citizen earns. Maybe their perspective on what needs to be cut from the budget will change.
I am so disgusted that I can hardly read The Blade in the morning. Why does anyone have to earn an exorbitant salary for part-time work? Why do people who earn these salaries act as though they do this superior job? Why do government employees earn such ridiculous amounts of money?
It is our tax dollars paying these goofballs. It is time to elect people who are ordinary citizens and have no political agenda other than wanting to improve this country.
But good luck finding them.
Wealth is being ‘spread around'
Barack Obama told Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher he would "spread the wealth." Unions backed Mr. Obama for president.
Now, wealth is being redistributed. How is "change" working for them now?
Darryl Bauman, Jr.