Editorial

            With the impending retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens this summer from the Supreme Court, for the first time in its history, that court will be without a Protestant.

            When Stevens leaves, the court will be composed of two Jewish and six Catholic justices.  So far we haven’t really seen any protests or heard of any political action being planned if President Obama’s appointment is not a Protestant.

            Currently serving as justices with Stevens are Samuel A. Alito Jr., Anthony M. Kennedy, John G. Roberts Jr., Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas, who were all appointed in the last 25 years by Republican presidents.  Also Catholic is President Obama’s first pick to the high court, Sonia Sotomayor.  Justices Steven G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are Jewish.

            Should religion be a factor to be considered in the next Supreme Court nominee? 

            President Obama has repeatedly emphasized that life experiences are valued traits for nominees.  For instance, it was Sotomayor who initiated a conversation about the experiences that a “wise Latina” might bring to the bench.  Would a qualified judicial candidate, who happens to be a Protestant, have a similar claim?

            Some editorial pages opine that discussing the issue will lead to trouble because religion is private and people think it’s wrong to talk about it.  Why?

            Have we become so politically correct that we’ve given away the right to ask legitimate questions that may or may not have an impact on who becomes the next Supreme Court Justice?

            If you’re a nominee to a position on the highest court in the United States, is it offensive to ask about religion and whether or not your personal beliefs will influence your decisions?  We expect the answer to the second half of that question to be no, but it seems to offend many just by asking it.

            Whoever is nominated and approved as the next Supreme Court Justice should be the person best qualified to serve.

            We hope that religion will be a consideration, but certainly not the only one.

Any government taxing authority, be it federal, state, local or school district that is facing the salary and benefit negotiation process with organized groups or collective bargaining units, faces a tough task.

If the only answer to the budget problem is to increase taxes or hold the line on salary increases, which one do you choose?  Either position will spark unrest in the other’s camp. 

Perhaps the answer is to compromise – give and take on both sides until a solution is mutually agreed to.  Let’s be realistic – even after a compromise is reached, there will be still be plenty of critics on both sides of the argument who will still be trying to sink the deal well after its been implemented.

Federal officials have no problem spending what they don’t have – and there’s no law against the United States going deeper and deeper in debt.  If you don’t like it, then you need to support candidates who promise to reduce that national debt.

On the other hand, everybody else needs to operate on a balanced budget – expenses must equal receipts.  If salaries and benefits rise then other expenses must fall and/or income must rise to pay for it.  Where does most of that income come from?  That’s right, taxes?

Too often officials take the easy way out and raise taxes.  Then they simply place the blame for that increase on the recipient of the benefit.  The taxpayer gets to frown on both sides – one for raising taxes the other for creating the reason for the increase.

We’d like to offer a suggestion to public officials.  Take more time to review the expenses and the way you do business before you decide to raise taxes.  Take a hard line on cost savings measures in everything you do and everything your employees do!   Document, document, document; always be ready to offer proof (don’t wait to be asked) that you’re spending taxpayer’s money wisely and responsibly. 

Don’t split up projects in order to divide the overall cost and avoid public bidding so you can award it to a favorite vender.  If employees get a raise that’s higher than the norm, don’t be afraid to take the free coffee out of the lounge or office.  If administrators are letting their staff administrate, why do we need the administrator?  Eliminate the position.  Never, ever hide money from the taxpayers – all accounts should be itemized and reflected in your monthly reports.  The list goes on and on.

Taxes can’t keep rising unchecked.  Once we’re all out of work, who will pay?   

Election Time Letters:   It’s election time and once again the Town and Country newspaper will publish Letters to the Editor regarding the candidates and the races.  In doing so, we ask that letter-writers follow the guidelines below:

                Letters to the Editor regarding the upcoming Primary Election on May 18 will be accepted up until May 3 for publishing in the May 6 edition.  Election related Letters to the Editor from the candidates will be accepted for publication up to May 10 for publication in the May 13 edition.  This will allow candidates to respond to letter-writers’ issues or concerns prior to the election.