Color's not important
I am old school; I enjoy reading the "paper." I love the feel of it. As I sit here reading, I really enjoyed the Los Angeles Times column by Peter Navarro; he's smart, and he should have run, not Donnie. Bradley Gitz was on a roll with his facts, which I concur with. Clarence Richmond in Searcy even quoted him, and had some good facts. But Deborah Suttlar's need for proof caught my eye. I believe the proof is Clarence and Gitz's facts are correct.
But the best proof is in the Bible: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."
Color is not important to the Lord.
ANDREW PHILLIPS
North Little Rock
Ditch the income cap
I believe Evans Winter's declaration that Social Security is doomed to collapse is just not correct. It is true that, because we are living longer and there are fewer people in the work force, something must be done. Right now the trust fund has a balance of $2.8 trillion. It is projected to be solvent until 2022 if nothing is done. By 2035, the trust fund would only be able to pay workers 75 percent of their benefits.
Workers currently pay 6.2 percent of their earnings to Social Security, up to an income cap of $118,500. Some proposals for increasing the trust fund include increasing the tax rate, lifting or abolishing the income cap, raising the retirement age, means-testing retirees, and changing the cost-of-living formula to reduce those annual adjustments that are currently based on the Consumer Price Index.
Increasing the tax rate, lowering the cost-of-living increases, and raising the retirement age would hurt the poorest earners. Their life expectancies are lower and many of them retire early due to poor health, thus reducing their benefit by as much as 30 percent. According to AARP and others, means testing would undermine the principle that benefits are an earned right. Lifting the income cap from its current level would help, but ending the cap on income altogether is the most sensible choice and would give the greatest return. This would mean every dollar of earned income would be subject to Social Security tax, not just the first $118,500.
It baffles me why there is an income limit at all. Why the government is providing this "welfare for the wealthy" just makes no sense. In my opinion we need legislation now that would do away with it.
PATRICIA M. PHILLIPS
Little Rock
Hassles in health care
I thought I would change my primary-care medical provider to a clinic that was closer to my residence and asked about transferring my records. Even though the clinic was in the same medical group in the same area, I was told that each clinic has a quota for each doctor to see Medicare patients and they had no openings. I know someone who recently moved to Northwest Arkansas from Central Arkansas and could not find a primary-care physician because they are on Medicare.
It doesn't take a CPA to understand the low reimbursement rate for Medicare patients is the primary factor in establishing quotas. I even attempted to use one of their urgent-care centers on a Saturday and was turned away because I was on Medicare. I offered to pay cash and was told I couldn't be seen because I was a Medicare patient.
Find a doctor who will agree to see you before you relocate, or drop your current primary-care provider. I even have a substantial secondary insurance policy besides my Medicare. And yes, I worked 40 years and retired twice.
JOHN MASSEY
Springdale
Alarming trend seen
I have subscribed to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette for over 10 years. The first section I turn to each morning is the Sports section. As an avid, female, sports-enthused reader, I have noticed an alarming and outdated trend in several sports stories and feel the need to express my concerns in hopes that it will be corrected in the future.
The issue I have is male dominance of articles where both female and male athletes are participants. There have been three stories this past year that have caused my concern. The first two stories are running-related--the Little Rock Marathon and the Firecracker Fast 5K. In both of these articles, the main focus was the male finishers and their accomplishments when, in both races, there were more female than male entrants. What was even more ironic was that the Firecracker article talked about how there were more female participants in this year's race and went on to add that there has been an increase in female runners on a national level.
The third article of issue was this past Sunday's segment on the All-Academic teams. Out of the 11 athletes, only four were female. I find it hard to believe that out of all the athletes submitted, only four female athletes met the stated criteria. I am aware that it is dependent on coaches submitting players, so I understand I could be mistaken.
As a past female athlete, I was aware of the difficulties of having to break the gender barrier. I am also the mother of a young female athlete and had truly hoped that, 20 years later, my daughter would not have these differences pointed out to her in such a direct manner. When reporting on future sporting events, please ensure you are giving equal weight and importance to all participants, regardless of gender.
AMY PORTER
Conway
We're better than this
Thank you so much for your July 20 editorial regarding the death penalty. Reading it, I was reminded of the editorial I read in the Oct. 30, 1977, Arkansas Gazette, "Life and Death." It was my response to that editorial, which was printed in the paper, that put me in touch with a group which had just been organized in Little Rock to work against the death penalty. Since then, I have been an active member of that organization, which is today the Arkansas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, and we are still working for abolition of the death penalty.
Your eloquent words are much appreciated by all who don't want to "let death win."
There are so many reasons to oppose the death penalty. I continue to be inspired by the members of Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation, who say they do not want the persons who killed their loved ones to be killed, and that this is not what will bring them peace of mind.
I have also come to realize that our state cannot execute the person who committed the crime which resulted in their being on death row. That person does not exist anymore. The persons I have known through the years on death row have all changed, and for the better. Having the death penalty brutalizes everyone associated with it, and when our state kills someone, it does it in our names. I don't want to be responsible for the death of anyone.
As someone once said in a debate on the death penalty, "It's tacky!" We can do better as a state than be in the business of killing our own citizens.
FRANCES O. "FREDDIE" NIXON
Little Rock
Revelatory of his bias
I read Philip Martin's review about Dinesh D'Souza's Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party.
I have not seen the movie, so I have no idea of its cinematic value. I concur with his assessment "that people are determined to believe whatever they have to in order to support the world-view they want to have" as proven by his own condemning commentary, which included "dubious history" and "revisionist history" without effort to either prove true or false the significance of the historical accounting which reveals both his own bias and willful ignorance.
JANET LONG
Conway
Editorial on 07/28/2016