Letters to the Editor

Letters: Readers discuss media overload, Trump, and dueling Star columnists’ takes on Gorsuch

Had enough

Do those in the liberal left wing have any idea how tiresome they have made the daily news?

It has become so nonsensical that we watch five minutes and shut it down. I’m talking about all of the national news stations, including those supposedly with more traditional and conservative views.

I have no interest in who had the largest inaugural attendance. I don’t care what politician talked with politicians of other countries unless there is verifiable knowledge of illegal and harmful discussions.

I am tired of questions about leaks until there is accountability, conviction and punishment that make them newsworthy. If the best the news agencies can do is get information from tweets, then who needs them?

Let’s get on with the actual package of changes the new leadership proposes using the team he has chosen for support, approve our Supreme Court nominee and see what the future brings.

At the current rate of nonsense issues, we will continue to have a do-nothing Congress and a waste of big-government expenses on a bunch of posturing plutocrats.

Calvin Day

Kansas City

Third party

Donald Trump is our first third-party president. Nobody wants to say that out loud, but it is as obvious as the nose on his face.

He used the Republican primary system to get his name on the ballot in every state — usually the biggest obstacle for third-party candidates. And he “borrowed” the party’s infrastructure, so he could avoid building an organization at the local level.

Since his election, however, he has shown no loyalty to the party or individual Republicans who helped him get elected. He has alarmed the tea party and other conservatives by proposing we spend billions on infrastructure and the military without a whisper of how we will pay for it, since he is also proposing a tax cut.

There is no actual third party. It’s just Trump. On the bright side, by 2024 the Trumpican party will have run out of candidates.

Jan L. Parkinson

Prairie Village

Health plans

Republicans in Washington, D.C., had eight years to improve upon or replace Obamacare. In 2026, an estimated 52 million people will be uninsured according to their proposed system. Are you kidding me?

Let’s make it simple: Either we the people get the identical coverage that members of the House and Senate receive (on our dime), or make it Medicare for all.

The health insurance companies are the cancer within the system. Health insurance should not be for profit. Enough is enough.

Jim Burkhart

Kansas City

Dueling columns

Dave Helling is right to point out some of the mischief embedded in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in his column “If faith trumps secular statutes, then no law is safe.” (March 22, 17A)

Where the Hobby Lobby ruling is concerned, the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch and Helling’s colleague, Melinda Henneberger (“Law protects religious beliefs, even the unpopular ones,” on the same page), all got it wrong.

Here’s why: Neither Hobby Lobby nor any other company pays for its workers’ health insurance. The employees pay for it.

Employers know that the company will be responsible for a new worker’s total compensation, which equals wages plus the employer’s share of FICA (Social Security and Medicare), the owner’s outlays for workers compensation and unemployment, and fringe benefits such as retirement and health care. These costs can add 30 percent or more to the costs of hiring a new worker.

Although the company writes the check to the health care company, the employees actually pay for the insurance, so employees’ religious beliefs should be honored in coverage choices — not those of their bosses.

Michael Oldfather

Manhattan, Kan.

Dave Helling’s column on the Hobby Lobby decision is written on a false premise, rendering the entire piece meaningless.

The First Amendment to the Constitution plainly states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The burden here is on Congress, not the one seeking a religious exemption. Therefore, the law should have never been enacted.

Opinions are great, but facts make them more meaningful, and this column is based entirely on a false premise.

Leon Cook

Kansas City