Dear Editor,
I say kudos to Mr. Thomas for an excellent letter (printed March 13, “Bad big government”). It matters not to environmentalists that ethanol production has increased meat and dairy prices. It also increases our “carbon footprint”, and caused environmental concerns. This also decreases the amount of food we can contribute to foreign humanitarian missions and has considerably added to the Gulf Coast’s “dead zone” by dumping tons of fertilizer into the Gulf. This prohibits huge populations of marine life from existing and costs thousands of jobs in Mississippi and Louisiana.
That’s fine with environmentalists though, as long as certain cars get 40 miles per gallon and “feel good” legislation gets passed, to hell with the unintended consequences. But no worries, as Mr. Thomas points out, the nanny state will take care of those affected.
I agree with the editor that the students should have input on the proposed parking plan. I’d like to ask the editor who these janitorial or food service workers, staff and faculty at ETSU are that aren’t earning a “living wage”? Exactly which worker commented or complained to you? Were they anonymous sources? Which one told you that they were being forced to work at ETSU against their will instead of having the opportunity of finding a job/education to earn a “living wage”? Exactly what is the editor’s definition of a “living wage” and what must one do as far as discipline, personal accomplishment, and dedication to education to deserve and or earn said “living wage”? What argument would the editor have against raising the minimum wage to $25 an hour to give employees a “living wage” regardless of the economic consequences?

Author