Dear Editor,

I tend to get a little upset when I keep hearing our leaders include Social Security and medicare as entitlements.

These are not entitlements!

We work 40 to 45 years of our lives paying into these programs so they will be available when we need them.

Our government used most of our social security surplus a long time ago but never paid it back, but they still keep sending billions overseas to countries who aren't really our allies.

This money needs to stay in the U.S. and used wisely.

There's another problem. Our government doesn't use money wisely. It hands out bailouts and pays for parties and conventions for government organizations. It spends billions for prisoners sho they can live better than about one quarter of our population. They are in prison for punishment for breaking the law.

Now, in this Iran agreement, we are paying a billion dollars to Iran. Here is a country that is considered to be the biggest supporter of terrorists and we are paying them, which means we are supporting the terrorists who are trying to kill us. Isn't that something? The Democrats have already voted for this deal. Is that using our money wisely?

Now there might be a bipartisan commission formed to study how to show up social security. I assume these members will be paid highly up to one year to come back and recommend what has already been tried before.

I don't see this as using our money wisely, do you?

Thank you.

Richard Medcalf

Stonewall

Dear Editor,

The city of Ada is going to raise the water rates in order to pay for a new pipeline from Byrd's Mill Spring to the city of Ada. The city of Ada raised the water development fun from $2.50 every two months to $7.50 every month. This took place when the city went to monthly billing. Proposition One has been in place since 1998. Surely, the money is there to build the pipeline. Proposition One has helped the city in many ways. I feel that the water pipeline should have been built before this time. It would have saved a million gallons of water a day due to the leaks in the existing line — and an increase in our water bills.

Bruce Brents

Ada

Editor,

On Monday, the City Council will vote on a proposal to add “sexual orientation” to our Equal Opportunity Statement.  There is a long list of reasons that I am opposed to this proposal to create a new special protected legal class.  First, is the fact that this will, without a doubt, stifle freedom of religious expression.  As a former pastor, current Sunday school teacher, and dedicated Christian, I believe that marriage, as biblically defined, is between a man and a woman.  Yes, I understand that the Supreme Court has changed that definition, but that does not force me, as a Christian, a leader, or as a member of the city council to create a new special protected class of people.  By adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes, any person who works for the city of Ada would be, at a minimum, afraid to admit to holding the long held Christian beliefs that I have stated above.  I believe deeply in the freedom of religious expression and will not make an unnecessary change to our policies that will squelch that freedom for those who work for our city.

My second reason for opposing this proposal is that it will open the city up to significant legal risk.  I am a business man.  I own and operate two companies that employ approximately 80 people, and I can tell you that anyone that has employees lives in fear.  Every time you have to lay an employee off, no matter how poor their job performance, you know that they can make the most frivolous claim of discrimination and that claim will cost you a significant amount of time and legal fees.  The federal government has not declared that “sexual orientation” is in the same legal class as race and religion.  Until they do, I can’t understand why we would want to give this group of people a greater legal status in the city of Ada than they are given in the rest of our nation.

The argument presented to us was that making sexual orientation a protected class before the federal or state government does, will show that “Ada is a progressive city”.  This type of sexual politics is not the type of progressiveness that we should strive for.  Progressive is a city that is building a new police station in an era where many in our nation are cursing the public servants who protect and serve us.  Progressive is a city which, in the middle of an economic downturn, votes to invest in its schools, its streets, its kids, and its future.  That is the type of progressive community I want to lead.  To ensure our city can continue to move forward, I will vote against creating a special protected class of citizens that can only stifle religious freedom and cause us to spend more money on legal fees and less on securing our future.  

I hope you will stand with me.

Greg McCortney

Ada City Council

This Week's Circulars