Library design lacking
To the editor: In my opinion the design of the improvements to the Oregon Library, which are being done at taxpayers’ expense, could have been much better.
I attended the meeting, and even though no one said anything during the meeting, afterwards, many agreed that it wasn’t at all what it should be. Unfortunately, it seems it is a done deal and changes cannot or will not be made. Here are a few of my concerns:
1. It does not blend with the current structure; instead is modern and unattractive.
2. The beautiful pergola and wisteria will be destroyed to make room for a “drop-off.”
3. The children’s area is as far from the entry as possible. It would have been much better near the entrance.
4. The addition of a space for teenagers to “hang out” with video games etc. does not seem like a good use of taxpayer funds. I question if the use will justify the expense.
5. The chosen color scheme has nothing to do with the fact that Oregon is close to the lake and is known as “Oregon on the Bay.” Instead, it is more corporate in feel. There is nothing in the design that is special to the location.
6. It doesn’t seem like there is more area for books, but there will be more computers.
7. Meeting room space is being expanded. I can’t comment on that as I don’t know the need.
8. There will be a “café” area – I don’t know why.
9. I don’t understand the need for a 24-hour open lobby. Perhaps it will be useful to some patrons.
The choice of temporary location at Wynn School could not be more inconvenient. I would think that the old Food Town would have been good or perhaps another currently empty place closer to the current location.
I am so sorry that it will be this way when it could have been really special for the patrons and Oregon residents who will look at it every day.
Campaign pledge needed
To the editor: Emboldened by recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, campaign funding from outside the political parties and their campaigns has exploded. In 2012, outside groups spent more than $1 billion and have already spent $100 million in 2014.
We are celebrating Independence Day weekend and Northwest Ohio WWII veterans have been taking Honor Flights to Washington in honor of the 70th anniversary of D-Day. Did our forefathers, grandfathers and fathers fight and die for our democracy, only to see that democracy perverted and sabotaged by today’s corrupt billionaires? Tired of campaigns reduced to bribes, lies and mudslinging political ads? Something can be done about it.
In the 2012 Massachusetts election, Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren agreed to reduce outside spending by agreeing to a People’s Pledge. With this pledge, the candidates agreed to pay a penalty if outside groups, including anonymous “dark money,” spend on their behalf. The result in Massachusetts was that both campaigns were relatively free of smearing ads and remained focused on the issues.
Here in Ohio, Gov. Kasich already has a five-to-one campaign funds advantage over his opponent Ed Fitzgerald. Do these candidates and the people of Ohio care enough about democracy to require a People’s Pledge in the Ohio’s governor’s race, or did the freedom fighters at Yorktown and Omaha Beach sacrifice their lives for nothing?
Lowering the bar
To the editor: A letter in the June 30 issue of The Press criticizes State Rep. Bob Latta’s stance on EPA regulations, comparing it to his stance on ObamaCare, which the writer calls a success. I guess if you lower the bar enough you can call anything a success, even if all you have to do is step over it. Or in the case of many people, step in it.
Didn’t the President want to insure everyone? ObamaCare leaves 30 million uninsured no matter how many states expand Medicaid. Didn’t the President promise that everyone could keep his or her healthcare plans? Insurers dropped millions, and many doctors and hospitals will drop Medicare and Medicaid plans as future mandates drag them into red ink.
Didn’t the President promise premiums would go down significantly? They went up significantly. Weren’t we promised deficit reduction? The Congressional Budget Office says it will add $2 trillion in debt over the next decade.
In 2010, the CBO predicted ObamaCare would drop the uninsured rate 40 percent by 2014. Two years later the projection was revised to 32 percent. One quarter later it was 25 percent. A year later it was 22 percent. The real number on March 31, 2014 was 12 percent. Keep lowering the bar.
Maybe we need to look at success differently. Economist Jonathon Gruber speaking to the New Yorker in 2013 claimed 97 percent of people either benefit or remain unaffected by ObamaCare. Chris Conover breaks down those same numbers for Forbes and finds that 4 out of 5 people are net losers. So who’s right?
Let’s assume the first guy is right. That makes ObamaCare so successful that Democrats will crush Republicans in November taking control of both houses of Congress as positive ObamaCare campaign commercials flood the airwaves and the President is invited to speak for every troubled Democrat. There’s a contradiction. Why would any Democrat be troubled by ObamaCare?
Maybe we just need to give ObamaCare more time and let the government intervene more in people’s healthcare. Just ask our veterans how that’s working.
Editor’s note: The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation have estimated 30 million non-elderly residents will be uninsured in 2016 but most will be exempt from a penalty. Those include unauthorized immigrants, persons with incomes low enough they aren’t required to file tax returns, members of Indian tribes, people who are incarcerated and people who have income below 138 percent of federal poverty guidelines and are ineligible for Medicaid because their state hasn’t expanded eligibility by 2016 under an option provided in the Affordable Care Act.