Advertisement

The candidate who will do the least harm

|
Wednesday, Oct. 24, 2012 10:52 PM

Editor:



When it comes to voting, it seems that our government will only allow for a two-party election. It’s easier for the corporations to own the politicians that way. With a billion dollars being spent on each of the Romney and Obama campaigns, how can we, the people, ever expect them to represent us? Election overhaul and the financing of campaigns is where America should start if we ever expect true representation.

So, who to vote for? I always vote for the person that I think will hurt the country the least. I can’t vote for Willard Mitt Romney for a whole bunch of reasons, but especially because of his willingness to support Israel’s attack of Iran and his pledge to stick another $2 trillion into the military. His pledge to reduce the deficit went out the window with that alone. We’ll be bankrupt, and the country will be paying over $10/gallon for gasoline as soon as that war begins.

I googled the 2012 budgets of every department connected to the military and espionage of our country. They are Defense, $683 billion; Veterans Affairs, $125 billion; Nuclear Weapons (Dept. of Energy), $64 billion; Homeland Security, $43.2 billion; CIA, $55 billion; FBI, $8.1 billion. Add to that the 2012 expenditures in Iraq ($50 billion) and Afghanistan ($108 billion), and the shopping total for 2012 is $1,1363 trillion! Plus interest on all that borrowed money! If we cut our military expenditures in half, we would still be spending more than the total of the next 10 countries combined, and we would still have the strongest military in the world.

So, I can’t vote for Romney on that alone. At least Obama isn’t talking more wars that we can’t pay for.



Willson C. Bloch

Mancos

Advertisement