Candidates debate while real work goes undone
The recent televised debate of GOP gubernatorial candidates is more proof that Georgians are wasting their time and energy in useless debates. Why don’t these candidates attend to the business they are elected to do, instead of campaigning?
The election is months away, and we will have plenty of opportunities to gauge a candidate’s ability based on their current performance at their jobs — and not their campaign promises.
Let me also make it clear: The legislators — not the governor — decide whether to raise taxes or levy new taxes. So do not bet on one person’s phony promises and false hopes.
If I ever meet a candidate, I will look in his eyes and ask him how he is going to reduce taxes by himself, or keep his promises. Will he resign immediately if he fails to do so?
Girish Modi, Decatur
Campaign ruling makes sellout complete
The Supreme Court decision on campaign finance has completed the framework for USA Inc.: government of the corporations, by the lobbyists, and for the special interests.
Richard V. Fuller, Marietta
Making laws has become a repulsive process
I can say honestly that the way the “negotiations” on this health care “reform” bill have been conducted have left me — an otherwise passionately politically informed and involved person — absolutely disgusted with the entire American political process.
I have zero respect left for the way laws are made in this country, and I’m “signing off.” If this is how my elected officials conduct themselves, then there is no reason left for me to care, as I sit back and watch you systematically destroy every opportunity for the redemption and evolution of our nation.
It is absolutely clear to me, finally. We don’t have a democracy (or a republic) here in America. We have, simply put, an auction.
Tony Rooney, Atlanta
Gun laws only disarm those who obey laws
I noticed a letter in “Readers write” (Opinion, Jan. 21) addressing the Second Amendment. I would point out to the letter writer that at the time the Constitution was written, an armed militia was the public. The public retained their arms to hunt for food and defend themselves.
This was the original intent of the writers of the Constitution. An armed militia as defined by a standing army or national guard does not need a constitutional right to bear arms — that is what they do.
The letter writer also brings up the tragic death of a child by a stray bullet. I would remind him that bullet came not from the gun of a law-abiding citizen, but a street thug. Gun laws do not take the guns from the hands of thugs. They disarm the law-abiding citizen.
M.C. Hill, Fayetteville
Support real journalism. Support local journalism. Subscribe to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution today. See offers.
Your subscription to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution funds in-depth reporting and investigations that keep you informed. Thank you for supporting real journalism.