Dear Editor:
Recently I saw a Jefferson City transit bus with an advertisement covering the entire side of the bus promoting a candidate for political office. I question, and personally disapprove, of the propriety of city property being used for political advertisements.
While I appreciate the prompt responses I received from the transit authority, the mayor and one of my council members, I am not satisfied by the information they provided. Advertising on city buses is coordinated by a third-party vendor under contract with the city. The advertising is paid for by advertisers and is not intended as an endorsement by the city. The city has not adopted any policies regarding the content of the advertising.
I am all for the First Amendment and I also have no issue with the city receiving revenue from advertising to help with the cost of running the city buses. I did look up the Transit Division Fund revenue and less than 1.5 percent of revenue for the buses comes from "other operating revenues" which is from bus advertising and gas tax refunds. If there were no bus advertising this would not affect the transit bus by much so it could be eliminated if the city feels they can not through policy or ordinance prohibit certain types of advertising.
This letter is not meant to condemn the candidate whose ad I saw, but more directed to city officials who I feel should exercise discretion and decline certain ads on the buses. I feel strongly that political advertising on taxpayer-funded public property is out of line.
I wonder if others feel the same way.
Right to work: The rest of the story
Tom Ault
Jefferson City
Dear Editor:
Not being satisfied with what I hear and see on the television ads provided to us by the unions (that have spent several millions of dollars them) I have tried to evaluate the monetary facts presented.
I have discovered that, to some extent, the ads are probably fairly accurate, but that is kind of like saying I have a large dog that I think is a Golden Retriever when in reality it is a golden Labrador Retriever.
The reason I mention this is simple. It is true that the states without the "Right to Work" law in place do make more money. The problem is which they are and why does their population make more money. Maybe reviewing some of those states will shed some light on it. Here is a list of some of the states that make up this group: California, New York, Illinois, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Alaska to name a few. My question to those who are not in favor of the law is, "Which one of those state would you like to live in?"
The reason I ask that question is called "cost of living" and the annual income required to be comfortable. Examples: San Francisco, $123,268; New York, $99,667; Boston, $88,967; Honolulu, $85,367.
No doubt there are those that would like to live in one of those states, who would sacrifice the reasonably simple home life we enjoy here to do so, and consequently they should do so.
Now we could also consider Tulsa where the average cost of a house is $114,800, or Indiana where groceries and healthcare are much less, or maybe just staying right here in Missouri where we only average out at around $59,196 per year, enjoy around a 3.5 percent unemployment while the country as a whole is hovering around 3.8 percent. Incidentally 4.5 percent in New York, Illinois, 4.7 percent, then there is Hawaii at a very low of 2.0 percent let's all move to Hawaii and see how that works out. I just talked to my brother-in-law last week I had to wait for him to call since he had to go to a special location to use his cell phone on the big island.
Sometimes just not telling all of the story may create an unhappy ending.
Vote your conscience!
Better jobs, higher wages
Edmund A. "Ed" Martin
Jefferson City
Dear Editor:
First of all, better jobs and higher wages is something working Missourians all seek to achieve. However, how we get there is another matter. A yes vote on Proposition A is key in reversing recent trends relative to other states.
The economic data and evidence is clear. It is not where we are as a state; it is the direction we're going.
Whether we like it or not, business and capital tend to go to states with the least restrictions to compete in global markets. It is also those same companies that tend to have the best pay, benefits, and career opportunities for workers. A case in point, Missouri, in the 1980s was No. 2 in automobile manufacturing next to Michigan. Since then, not one foreign auto manufacturing company has located in Missouri and some of the domestic ones have closed or relocated their operations to other states or countries.
My years in economic development and labor market research at the local, state and national level show that we need to compare Missouri to states that are recently successful and determine what they are doing right. Michigan, Indiana and Wisconsin are states which have in recent years passed Right to Work and are growing faster than Missouri with opportunities for better jobs and higher wages. In 2011, Missouri ranked 32nd in GDP per capita and in 2018 Missouri ranked 37th with $43,817 per capita and a 3.1 percent growth rate. Michigan, Indiana and Wisconsin all ranked higher with 18.6 percent, 14.2 percent and 9.4 percent growth rates respectively during those same years.
Proposition A should not be a political issue. It is an economic one. All working Missourians and small businesses have a stake in the outcome. It should not be protection of wages or jobs for about 10 percent of the dues paying unionized working population, but rather greater opportunity for all 100 percent of dues and non-dues paying working Missourians.
Let's grow our economy and utilize our investment in the education of our young people and keep them in Missouri rather than spending hard-earned tax dollars and sending them to other states with better job and wage opportunities. A "yes" vote will be an important first step.
As a country, we can't see the good for the negative
Charles Schroeder
Westphalia
Dear Editor:
We as a country have too many people, as the old saying goes, who "can't see the forest for the trees." They cannot see the good for the negative. This country has ran amok for too many years. For too many years we have had a know-it-all, do-nothing, Washington Establishment. No wonder they have a 10 percent approval rating.
For too many senators, representatives, agency heads, it was all about them, not about he country nor the citizens.
In 2016, we elected a president who lives this country, loves the people. He wants to U.S.A. to be a strong, secure, progressive nation. Yes, he is different in his approach, not part of the Washington Establishment.
This deal that all Democrats believe and feel the same on every issue and every vote is unbelievable to me. If that is the case, they are not representing their people or their country.
It is a known fact that Washington, D.C. hates President Trump, but that is not a reason to vote against a bill that is good for our country. In President Trump's year and a half, good things have been accomplished for this country, so give him credit. If he had the support he deserves, great things could happen. President Trump is smart, knowledgeable, knows what is going on in this country and around the world.
President Trump's meeting with Putin: News media and Washington, D.C. called it Russian Summit; President Trump called it a meeting. President Trump knows very well that Russia is a U.S. enemy - the term "meeting" was the clue. He wanted a face-to-face sit down with Putin to get a better read of Mr. Putin. Putin of Russia is different than Kim of North Korea. Putin is a person you can not demand, bully or even threaten, if you want cooperation to solve world issues. Russia is a world power and a player in world matters.
There is an old saying, "You can catch more flies with honey than you can catch with vinegar." This said, it does not mean that the U.S. cannot sanction or confront them militarily if needed to defend ourselves or our allies. To defeat the enemy, you have to know the enemy. You have to know where you want to go, to get there. One step at a time.