Entire migrant-kids

situation is intolerable

Re: June 13 letter “Such cruelty toward children.”

So the writer is outraged at the way the government is treating the illegal immigrant children. Has she offered to host a few children in her own home? Has she made donations to ease the overwhelming burden? Has she volunteered her time at the shelters to help these kids?

I wonder where the families of these poor, underprivileged children are getting the money to send their offspring to the United States. I wonder how they get across the southern Mexican border. If the Mexicans thought these immigrants would stay in Mexico, they would have been turned back.

The whole situation is intolerable. The government’s shame is that Congress would rather fight against each other than work on a viable solution to illegal immigration.

Marilyn Forstot

Retired, Sahuarita

A candidate’s party

is a vital consideration

Congress is America’s legislature. What it does depends on its makeup. The majority party in the Senate or House, organizes that body.

The Senate Majority leader has power to determine what matters that body will consider. The House speaker is similarly empowered. Each has lieutenants, prescribed by rules and chosen by majority vote to assist in running that body.

Voters often say (apparently with pride) that they vote for the person, not the party. They should recognize, though, that their vote is often more significant for the winning candidate’s party than for the candidate, determining, as it may, the party in control.

Both parties’ goals are known, but achievable only with congressional majorities. A successful “minority” candidate can accomplish little.

Voters should bear in mind that a candidate’s party is vital in deciding which party will organize and control one of the houses of our national legislature.

Charles Tillinghast

Retired lawyer, Tucson

Gun-control people

miss the real problem

Re: the June 8 column “ ‘Guns everywhere’ movement brings NRA to heel.”

Let me start by saying I carry a firearm. Depending on the time of year and/or where I’m going determines how I carry. While I don’t carry a long gun, the law-abiding citizen has that right. The right to carry goes way back before Dodge City or Tombstone. Note, their gun-control laws have expired.

I’ve got to admit, carrying a long gun may be a bit overboard. But keep in mind that well over 90 percent of gun owners are law-abiding citizens. And when it comes to places like Chipotle’s, they won’t get a dime of my money.

If you really want to stop the “pro-gun” hype, then we need to go after the real problem. Punish the criminals and help the people with mental-health problems. The harder the left pushes for gun control, the harder the right pushes for gun owner rights. And remember, not all killings are committed with guns. Some are committed with knives. What’s next, background checks for a steak dinner?

Steven Barker

USAF retired, Tucson

Putting hospital data

online is a futile effort

Re: the June 5 article “State puts data on hospital cost, procedures online.”

History tells us that this most recent effort to promote “shopping” for hospital care will not work.

For about 10 years in the ’80s and ’90s, Arizona published and disseminated a free pamphlet comparing the price, by hospital, of the most frequent procedures. Not only was there no discernible impact on costs, there was little evidence that the pamphlets were used very much.

The journal Health Affairs in April 2012 stated that “many current cost-profiling efforts are unlikely to have the intended effect. One of the reasons is that many consumers believe that more care is better and that higher-cost providers are higher-quality providers, so giving them information that some providers are lower-cost may have the perverse effect of deterring them from accessing these providers.”

Not only will this new effort not impact costs, it is costly to the taxpayer.

Phil Lopes

Former member,

Arizona House of Representatives, Tucson

What are Saudis doing

as Iraqi forces flee?

The Iraqi army is laying down their arms oops, our arms. If we go into that country, our children will be fighting those using our own weapons.

What are the Saudis doing? They have the money, the resources, the weapons (ours again) and the most to lose. 

I don’t have a crystal ball, but if we are fighting to keep the oil flowing, we already tried that twice and backed groups that later turned against us.

If even al-Qaida is afraid, what are they doing?

Cindy Schiesel

Retired, Tucson