Letters to the Editor: Dec. 19

“Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting,” said Mark Twain. Severe drought and pleas from the Department of Interior will not bring the basin’s water users to an agreement to cut their water use. Interior threatened to impose cuts, but then backed off.

I was a lawyer with the Department years ago, and once was a candidate for the Central Arizona Project board. The Department should devise an emergency order to force cuts to river use. It could do it equitably, giving credit to users who have taken steps to save water like many cities, and credit farmers who efficiently grow vegetables rather than wasteful cattle crops like alfalfa. National commitments to Mexico and Indian tribes must be honored. Years with good river flows could increase usage. The cuts should be sufficient for Lakes Mead and Powell to retain enough water to provide for more drastic future droughts. A computer program could account for a thousand variables and needs.

Interior, stop pleading and start dictating. And lawyer up.

Roger Wolf

Foothills

Headed in the right direction

Re: the Dec. 8 article “Respect for Marriage Act a big win for the democratic process.”

The “Bloomberg Opinion” piece declared the recent passage of the federal Respect for Marriage Act as a “big win” for the democratic process. It was certainly a step in the right direction, but not necessarily a big win for same-sex marriage in the U.S.

Despite the new law, if the Obergefell Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage was overturned, states so inclined would now have the ability to declare such unions illegal. Consider the chaos created by the overrule of Roe v. Wade and double it if Obergefell also falls under the same justices that stripped away the right to reproductive freedom for women. Justice Thomas has already called for the reconsideration of its prior decision on same-sex marriage. The Bloomberg writers naively state that “Obergefell is almost certainly here to stay.” Didn’t we already believe that about Roe v. Wade?

Walter Cooney

Green Valley

Fix Social Security

The number of people now collecting Social Security is a burden on the workforce to sustain.

A quick look at how the system is currently working. A wage earner pays a tax for his future Social Security from each paycheck. For each dollar the worker has withheld, the employer must match it. If the wages earned exceed approximately $147,000 per year, no further deduction is taken for the year. This ceiling needs to be raised to $200,000 immediately. And then over time ratchet up to a ceiling of $300,000. This will help stabilize the current needs and help ensure future recipients have a greater benefit.

For those born after January 1, 2000, the minimum age to apply should be raised to age 66 for early retirement and age 70 for full benefits. I believe these simple adjustments will have a small impact on the take home pay, but remember that you are contributing to your future retirement income.

Eric Long

Sierra Vista