Letters to the Editor

Numerous people served on panel

To the Editor:

I write this letter to the editor for the many gracious people who worked and volunteered their time, directly or indirectly, to improve and maintain Lake Mitchell and the surrounding area.

Lake Mitchell Development Committee (LMDC) was formed in 1974 with a priority goal to save the city of Mitchell’s “only water supply,” and we did just that.

The LMDC assisted with the following related projects with the assistance from USDA, S.D. Department of Water and Natural Resources, S.D. Department of Game, Fish and Parks; local soil and water conservation districts; city of Mitchell’s Department of Parks and Recreation and Department of Public Works; Lake Mitchell shoreline stabilization and protection projects; Jim River water supply pumping plant and pipeline; development of Lake Mitchell Campground; handicap piers on the northeast and west end of Lake Mitchell; Lake Mitchell sediment surveys; Lake Mitchell dredging project; Lake Mitchell shoreline cleanup projects; Firesteel Creek bank stabilization project; Firesteel Creek and Lake Mitchell watershed program and project; Lake Mitchell recreation sites area plan; boat docks on south and west of Lake Mitchell; development of southwest beach area; development of Lake Mitchell public access areas; development of land use and fertilizer program for Lake Mitchell; development of the replacement of water treatment plant; storm sewer runoff plan for the bypass area; Lake Mitchell water quality program; improvement and repair of Lake Mitchell spillway project; wildlife habitat in and on Lake Mitchell; recommend a Lake Mitchell security patrol; recommend a Lake Mitchell real estate drainage and sewer improvement project; tree planting and grass seeding program for Lake Mitchell city property.

These are just a few of the projects that the former LMDC provided assistance for, as well as the present ongoing Lake Mitchell algae control program. I appreciate all the professionals and volunteers who attended meetings and worked on the many Lake Mitchell projects.

B.E. Schmucker, Chairman, LMDC, Mitchell

Johnson should be sent home

To the Editor:

Sen. Tim Johnson mentioned that the most vocal opponents of a new health reform bill were in the minority. He had been in office for a long time and he knew what was best for the state. I found that very interesting. How would he know the most vocal people were in the minority?

I know if a person strongly believes in something, he may go against popular opinion to do what he thought was right. You have to admire someone’s honest conviction to stand up for what he believes in. But if that is the case, don’t you have to be honest in presenting that case? Wouldn’t you want to be cautious in your estimations?

On the health-care debate, Sen. Johnson is not being honest. He keeps repeating the party line that the CBO has said that this bill will reduce the deficit and reduce health premiums. The CBO has said that with the information that they received from the Senate, this bill will reduce the deficit, or reduce premiums, not both. The reason that they would do one or the other is that they either have to use the $500 billion in cuts to Medicare to reduce the deficit or reduce premiums, they can’t do both. Congress has been trying to cut Medicare costs for a long time and for some time they have made it mandatory to cut the doctors’ reimbursement in Medicare, but each year they vote not to do it. Does that sound like a reasonable plan to count on the source of funding for health reform?

How about the fact that they start collecting money in 2010 and don’t start spending in any degree until 2014? I understand that any program of this size will take a while to get up and running, but to be fair, to show the true cost of a program, wouldn’t you use spending and benefits over an equal period of time?

If you really wanted to control the rising cost of health care, don’t you think you might want to have the cost-setters, hospitals, doctors, drug companies and malpractice lawsuits the main focus of your reform?

Johnson is truly being irresponsible and needs to come home. He needs to be fired.

Mark Hegge, Platte

Make English official language

To the Editor:

Why doesn’t Congress pass bill HR 997 to make English the official language of the United States? This is a very important bill to the future of the U.S. as a nation. For one thing, it would cost us billions of dollars if we had to print all public documents in multiple languages of which there are at least 40 or more. If public documents were printed in one or two extra languages, that would be discrimination.

Last year there was a bill introduced in Congress that would have forced all businesses to furnish interpreters for people that could not understand English. That was a ridiculous bill and would have forced a lot of companies out of business. If anyone needs an interpreter to understand English it should be up to them to furnish the interpreter and pay for them.

I was asked what we should do to create more jobs. That is a tough question. I heard that we lost another 85,000 jobs last month. We never should have lost the jobs in the first place. The unions forced the wages and benefits up so high that we are priced out of the world markets. We are importing most of our manufactured goods, and that is adding to our trade deficit. We cannot compete with other countries where they have cheap labor. That is where our jobs have gone.

The only way I can see to get our jobs back would be to lower the minimum wage back to $5 and start some factories and start manufacturing some of our own products. Then implement my recommended tax increase on individuals 1 percent on every $100,000 after the first $250,000 up to 90 percent. That would lower the cost of living and the tax burden on the lower-income people, benefit the government and the general public.

John Zilverberg, Highmore

Tags: letters to the editor, bernie schmucker, lake mitchell, tim johnson, mark hegge, official language, john zilverberg, opinion