Dear Editor:
The longer I live, the more it becomes apparent that most people talk without having any real knowledge of the subject they’re discussing. I find this most disturbingly true when it comes to politics. Consider some of these gems, found in the East Tennessean:
“… George Bush opened up Alaska to free up Alaskan oil to prevent a rise in gas prices.” (“Republicans didn’t cause park issues, Feb. 5.)
“… Bill (Clinton) … balanced the budget and lowered unemployment … one of our greatest presidents.” (“Blades was correct about environment, Feb. 12.)
“… What happened to gas prices under Clinton? … We now pay on average $1.45 per gallon while we only paid $1 per gallon under the (elder) Bush administration.” (“Republicans didn’t cause park issues, Feb. 5.)
After reading the preceding statements in consecutive weeks in the Letters to the Editor section, I found myself wondering: What planet do these people live on?
George W. Bush is not attempting to open the Alaskan reserves as a way of preventing rising gas prices.
Truth be known, there are oil rigs all over Texas and Oklahoma sitting idle because, even at $28 to $35 per barrel, it’s cheaper to buy the oil overseas than to pay American workers to get it out of the ground.
The opening of the Alaskan reserves is simply a way of appealing to the corporations that helped elect him and appear as a “good guy” in the eyes of the public for “doing something” about gas prices.
When gasoline was $10 per barrel in 1998 and 1999, no one was wondering why Alaska hadn’t been opened. I would advise everyone to get used to $1.45, because as long as OPEC is united, it will never be any cheaper, regardless of Alaska.
Bill Clinton lowered unemployment and balanced the budget? Well, to be fair, Clinton and a Republican majority in Congress achieved these accomplishments.
A balanced budget was largely achieved through a combination of a relatively peaceful decade (and therefore low military expenditures) and a slash-and-burn mentality towards spending.
If you manage to toss millions of people off welfare, unemployment, disability, public housing, etc., certainly your costs should go down.
As far as lowering unemployment goes, I suppose if you can’t collect welfare benefits, you’ll get up and go down to you local Mickey D’s for a job since it’s not likely you’ll curl up and die.
Or maybe the lower unemployment rate should be credited to the millions of $6-per-hour service jobs that were created to replace the thousands of $20-per-hour manufacturing jobs that were donated to our friends in Mexico and Latin America, thanks to NAFTA, which Clinton signed.
Finally, if Clinton is one of our greatest presidents, then maybe there should be a new category for Lincoln, Washington, Theo and Franklin Roosevelt – godliest presidents?
In closing, I would highly suggest the writers of the letters to which I have referred start learning how to do their own thinking rather that regurgitating the endless rhetoric and B.S. which come from the media and the politicians themselves.
Joseph Martin
Unicoi

Author