Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Editors reserve the right to edit letters for spelling, grammar, punctuation, excessive length and unsuitable content.


Most of you writers on the left have absolutely 20 sense of irony

To the editor,

Alan Vervaeke claims to be an "activist" for positive social change or something along those lines. And thank goodness we have him among us, keeping a critical eye on letter writers. I don't know if the man believes he is qualified to render judgment on what others write in The Daily Sun. He sure talks like he is a "legend in his own mind." And, my goodness, doesn't he sound like one of those progressive elitists who is just so much smarter than most of the rest of us. And apparently, he is just so darn cocksure that he is on the proper side of politics and imbued with the correct ideology, that he can chastise those who dare to disagree with unfiltered impunity. It must be just so warm and fuzzy living in his cerebral palace, soothed with the best of intentions. Wouldst that I were there too? Umm, please God, No!

Now Alan apparently has enough tact and intelligence to avoid the nastiest of name calling. So hopefully, he doesn't think that I am a racist because he didn't say so. No, no, I'm just a "poor thinker" in his eyes. You know, one who repeats the "rantings and ravings" of a "neo-conservative" like Dennis Prager. I think he is one of the finest people in talk radio; he treats all callers with respect. But of course, Alan seemingly knows better because he feels righteous enough to label Dennis as someone who speaks to "rile up the mindless." And how does Mr. Vervaeke back up such bodacious balderdash? Are you ready? Because "vomit is vomit." Well, there you have it. Proof positive that Dennis Prager is a um,"a yucky person?" That pretty much sums up the rationale by Alan as proof positive, to demean Dennis.

And, now, here comes Alan, about the fifth letter writer who thinks they are qualified to demean me and scold me into not writing or perhaps, as Alan decrees, I can write something worthwhile on my own and then he will give me my due and respond accordingly. Geesh, don't do me any favors, Alan. I do read the columns from a great many conservative/libertarian writers tis true. And I give them their due and name them because they are great minds, have great integrity and know their history. I wonder who Alan respects as writers?

Sorry Alan, but it is you, judging by the patronizing putdowns in your letter, who sound like a mouthpiece for American progressives, parroting their totalitarian vision. The vision which amounts to telling the rest of us how to act, and what to say, and how to think, and who we should listen to, in order to live our lives without being verbally sullied and debased by the likes of you. You may be a nice guy in your private life, but your letters give the impression that you envision yourself as a part of the progressive thought police. Do you really think you evoke compassion and tolerance when letters such as the one you just wrote offer nothing more than name calling and demonization?

So perhaps I am a poor thinker, but judging by your latest letter of character assassination, you have failed to do any thinking at all. It appears you have no concept of irony, like most of the other writers of the left. You demand tolerance, diversity and openness from the right, while spewing forth nothing but intolerance, groupthink and narrow mindedness. And here's a thought Alan. I think I can live the rest of my life quite well if left alone, without any further responses from you. But please do keep on writing. Like Hillary Clinton, your condescending jabberwocky will continue to do wonders for the cause of conservative politics.

Russ Wiles

  • Written by Edward Engler
  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 449

Non-workers shouldn't be able to maintain same living standard

To The Daily Sun,

I was taken back when I read Jim Hightower’s column suggesting Medicare for all was the next step in health care and would cut the cost from $6,200 to $466 per family. I have read Jim’s articles in the past and think he’s a smart guy so I would like him to explain "with facts" where he came up with that amount. I have flash backs of our previous president saying the ACA (Obamacare) would save each American family $2,400 annually.

That was not true and he knew it. I have read many articles that support that conclusion but the best one was by Forbes. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/11/10/aca-architect-the-stupidity-of-the-american-voter-led-us-to-hide-obamacares-tax-hikes-and-subsidies-from-the-public/#5f8fe1b77c05 — Note, you have to click on “continue to article.) For those that do not know who Johnathan Gruber is, he was one of the architects of the ACA. Please watch the video in the link above. The statement he makes is that Obamacare was written in such a torturous way so people would not realize that healthy young Americans would subsidize older sicker Americans, which is exactly what it has done. Single payer is just Obamacare on steroids. I did a web search on health care costs and came up with (https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.html), which is the historical data for what health care has cost in America since 1960. There are charts for just about everything but the one I was most interested in was the total cost. Since its historical data 2016 was not complied so the last year in the table was 2015 and the total cost to the American public was $3.2T or $9.990/citizen which is consistent with Jim’s number above. That cost is not shared evenly but it is shared by everyone that pays for health care and/or pays taxes. I will say this bluntly, the “government” pays nothing; they just take in taxes and redistribute them to others based on laws, primarily and discretionary spending for the balance.

We, the American taxpayer, foot 100 percent of government spending and when they spend more than what we give them the national debt goes up. If you don’t understand that you should not be voting. We have a $20T deficit and paid $260B in interest on that debt last year. It amazes me that no one in Congress bats an eye at forking out $260B in interest but will argue over funding $8B for a border wall.

Getting back to the single payer debate. It is really a question if we are we going to be a socialist or capitalist county. The basic difference is in capitalist countries workers get to keep a significant portion of their earnings and they are responsible for their own health care. In a socialist country workers keep a smaller portion of their earnings and everyone has unlimited health care. Actually that is not an accurate statement. Most socialist countries ration health care. I have friends in both Canada and England and the wait times are four to six months for procedures we can have in the U.S. in a week or less. I do want to make one point here that I have made in a previous letter to the editor.

We as a country already have a “partial” socialist program in place. It’s called Social Security and Medicare. Everyone who works pays into those programs and gets to take out from that program when they reach retirement age. Again to put it bluntly, that system is broken. In 2016, Social Security and Medicare taxes took in $1.11T and paid out $1.54T — for a net shortfall of $.43T. And who picked up the difference? Well the American taxpayer of course. Actually Congress just kicked the can down the road and covered it by increasing the national debt by another $.66T in 2016. Where I’m going with this is: until elected government officials balance the budget we should not be voting in any more programs that will cost the American worker more. Telling voters that single-payer health care will cost less is as false as Obamacare will save the average family $2,400/year. Total health care cost was $3.2T in 2015. That was an increase of $176B from 2014 and there was an increase of $152B in the previous year. To think that trend will stop is just wishful or maybe delusional thinking. Jim’s statement that just “cutting the fat” out of the medical system will decrease the costs to a family of say four, which is $40,000 (by his numbers) to $466, is laughable. Even if he meant $466/month it would come to $5,592/year or an 88 percent decrease which is equally ridiculous.

I’m frustrated that the media refuses to call out government officials for misrepresentation and in fact most support that viewpoint. Articles like Jim’s are just irresponsible and get people fired up with “unsubstantiated facts” that they quote as “truth.” Here is a quote that I think is appropriate: “Socialism is a great form of government until you run out of other people’s money.” If you “work” for a living don’t be duped by those that “talk” for a living. In this country only 63 percent of the population over the age of 16 is working. (See https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000) In my opinion, senators and congressmen who promise the 37 percent who are not working free stuff like health care, housing, welfare, etc. are “buying” votes. Do I think as a nation we should not help those in need? Absolutely not, but I do think that we should not take so much from the American worker that the nonworkers can maintain the same standard of living as those that do work. It takes away the incentive for both groups to get up in the morning and show up to work. I knew one billionaire in my life who was born into poverty, in China, and started multiple successful companies in the U,S. He once told me that, “Hunger is a great motivator.” To that point, subsidizing people who are capable of working to not work is in my opinion morally wrong to both the individual and those of us that have to pay for it.

Bruce Jenket

  • Written by Edward Engler
  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 357