Letters to the Editor

Time to be fair on wages

I think it’s high time to be fair. We really need to take an open-minded look at the low federal minimum wage of just $7.25 per hour. The average hours worked for the minimum wage worker is about 2,080 a year. At the low federal wage of just $7.25 an hour, it would come to just $15,080 per year, and that’s not very fair.

By increasing this low wage from $7.25 to just $10.10 an hour, it would bring that figure to a much more fair amount of $21,008 per year.

You also have the people working at McDonald’s and Burger King saying they should be paid $15 per hour. At 2,080 hours worked in a year they would make $31,200 per year. Now that’s what I would say is very fair.

Now there is another group of people who are receiving about the same amount of yearly income. On the average, a Social Security recipient receives about $15,228-a-year income (the average monthly benefit is $1,269, according to the Social Security website). Increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour from $7.25 an hour would be about a 39 percent increase. Using that same 39 percent increase, it would bring the $15,228 Social Security yearly benefit to a much more fair amount of $21,167. Not as much as the worker at McDonald’s or Burger King, but hey, they are still working.

If all the wages go up, I guess we can say goodbye to the cheap hamburgers.

Jerry Sherman

Terrebonne

State AG is wrong on same-sex marriage law

There has been a blizzard of fatuous statements made by feather merchants in government recently, but in our opinion, the “blithering idiot” award for the best of the worst should go to the current Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum for her comments on why she thinks the Oregon law against same-sex marriage shouldn’t be defended. The law against same-sex marriage was passed in Oregon in 2004.

The woman has a torture chamber for a mind, as she twists the rational like a molten pretzel to conform to her idea of right and wrong: I’m right and you’re wrong, state of Oregon voters, but thanks for voting for me anyway. Suckers.

“There must be a rational basis for government to establish different sets of rules or laws for different sets of people under the Constitution,” she says in a Feb. 21 Bulletin article.

There must be a rationale in that pile somewhere, but we still don’t see it.

Doug and Cathy Jory

Hines

Legislators should leave ballot title alone

Apparently, Oregon House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, along with Reps. Jessica Vega-Pederson, D-Portland, and Vic Gilliam, R-Silverton, don’t trust the wisdom of more than 71,000 Oregon voters statewide in 2013, who had the opportunity to read Senate Bill 833 and then sign a referendum 301 signature sheet that put the issue of whether or not those illegally present in the state should be allowed driver cards before the state’s voters in November of this year.

Unfortunately, these legislators — Vega-Pederson and Gilliam were original sponsors of the driver card legislation — want to pass a law to rewrite the ballot title of referendum 301, even before the Oregon Supreme Court gets a chance to make a decision on the input given by opponents and proponents of the current ballot title.

All members of the 2014 Oregon State Legislature should, in all fairness to the state’s voters who signed referendum 301, stay out of the way — they had their turn at amending the legislation during the 2013 legislative session — and let the state court have the final say on the ballot title of the referendum.

Oregonians who oppose driver cards for those illegally present in the state should contact their state legislators and tell them to reject any tampering with the current ballot title, which clearly reveals the consequences of the legislation if it were to become a state law — “Provides Oregon resident ‘driver card’ without requiring proof of legal presence in the United States.”

David Olen Cross

Salem

Ill-advised Sisters project would remove trees

The removal of 16 damaged and diseased trees in Bend’s Pioneer and Drake parks has been front-page news in The Bulletin. However, the proposed removal of 26 significant ponderosa pines in Sisters Creekside Park to accommodate the proposed expansive RV park has not been front-page news in Sisters. Should this ill-advised project proceed? Will the Sisters City Council take down the Sisters Tree City flag that flies above the “Welcome to Sisters” sign at the east end of town? One wonders what has become of the Sisters City Council that sees progress here in fewer trees and more concrete.

Byron H. Dudley

Sisters