Letters to the Herald

For the Jan. 14 issue.

Resident defends squad’s suspension of volunteer

To the editor:
   
I read with interest your article, "Letter leads to suspension for volunteer," by Dana Lynn Flatekval, in the Dec. 31 edition of the Windsor-Hights Herald.
   The article would lead the reader to believe that Ms. Scaletti’s only concern was the lowering of the flag on Sept. 11 (Patriots Day), and her desire to help people, and that this led to her suspension from the East Windsor Township Rescue Squad District I. Once I was able to get past Ms. Scaletti’s smoke screen, I came to the realization that Ms. Scaletti wrote a letter to the newspaper as a member of the EWTRS, speaking for the membership without the proper authorization. Ms. Scaletti’s suspension was the result of her misconduct by failing to follow the rules, it had nothing to do with the lowering of the flag or her desire to help people.
   Public Law 107-89 requests the flag be lowered on Patriots Day, it does not mandate the lowering of the flag. Although, any organization serving the public should have had their flag lowered, Ms. Scaletti was told numerous times that there was no order to do so.
   Michael Sarbu ("Squad member suspended for writing letter to paper," letter to the editor, Dec. 31) claims the bylaws are vague, so are most bylaws. Mr. Sarbu goes on to say, "The last time I checked, no executive board has the power to take away any one person’s freedom of speech." I did not find anything in the article that indicated the executive board took away Ms. Scaletti’s freedom of speech. Mr. Sarbu must be aware that Ms. Scaletti’s letter was not written as a concerned citizen but as a member of an organization. To quote squad Chief Michael Quinn, "We would not have suspended her if she did not sign the letter as a member."
   Ms. Scaletti would do well to take a lesson from Seth Kurs’ Guest Column, "Council should be applauded for EMS upgrade" from Dec. 31. Mr. Kurs cites the organizations he has been affiliated with but makes it very clear that his is responding to Mr. Crowell’s article as an informed individual, not as a representative of any organization. For Mr. Sarbu, Victor Raczka ("Rescue squad’s leaders putting community at risk," letter to the editor, Dec. 31) and Ms. Scaletti, please note that Mr. Kurs exercised his freedom of speech as an individual not as a member of an organization, as Ms. Scaletti did.
   In reading the letters to the editor by Mr. Sarbu and Mr. Raczka, it would appear the these two individuals are very knowledgeable in regards to the internal affairs of the organization. One wonders about their source of information, if they actually wrote these letters or how much influence Ms. Scaletti had in the writing of these?
   As a final note, Ms. Scaletti has repeatedly stated that she just wanted to help people, yet her negative statements have done nothing but hurt the people she worked alongside and the organization as a whole. Ms. Scaletti is not the only volunteer who has for years given up time to help people. Ms. Scaletti would have done well to write about all the good the volunteers do, all the people in the community they help and about the lives they have saved, instead of the internal affairs of this worthy organization

Jeanne C. Lagasse
East Windsor



East Windsor planning will turn township into slum
To the editor:
   
It’s a billowy afternoon before Christmas. A woman is standing outside of SuperFresh in a shopping center on Route 130. A stranger with an out-of-state license plate walks up and asks, "Where is the town of East Windsor?" The only answer the woman — an actual resident of East Windsor — could give, was: "In the Municipal Building with the hanging gardens on Lanning Boulevard."
   As a New Year begins, it is worth asking Mayor Janice Mironov and the Township Council of East Windsor (also in the Babylon Hanging Gardens building) about their civic planning. Not only is East Windsor the only "town" in the area which has no designated town center (a deterrent to residential identity when compared with quaint, picturesque towns like Hightstown and Cranbury nearby), but it is the only municipality which is apparently intent on building a Las Vegas strip without the glitz, glamour, or gilded money from organized crime.
   Apparently, the Township Council of East Windsor is so busy doing business for itself that it has failed to hire a civic planning consultant to address town needs with its own residents. Their "plan," if you can call it that, is apparently to permit chain stores to purchase land on both sides of a major highway, Route 130, and build gaudy consumer factories. This is creating traffic havoc (they haven’t moved up to U-turns at exit points yet) and an atmosphere of mass degradation which is offensive to many residents. For the Township Council has neither produced a plan to put businesses in shopping centers, create a clear and safe public highway through the town, and develop a town center near the grandiose municipal building, instead of a parking lot.
   The damage is incalculable to real estate developers, homeowners, and independent, local businesses who can’t compete with unwarranted huge new CVS stores like the one the Mironov administration is permitting to build next to Route 130 instead of remaining in a spacious store in the Burlington shopping mall. For decades of nothing but slip shod, disorganized, chain stores placed on the side of the road will ultimately turn a "new" East Windsor into a slum.
   We think the residents of East Windsor deserve better and the Mironov administration should hold public hearings about its civic planning in order to prevent further damage to property values, job losses, and disposable income as well as residential interests.

Anne Hiltner
East Windsor



Some people cannot attend Twin Rivers’ meetings
To the editor:
   
I am responding to Elana Berlinger’s letter expressing her sorrow and suggestion regarding how I should express my opinion ("Twin Rivers complaint should have been aired to board," Jan. 7).
   As the self-appointed Hollingston Place Block Captain, I am certain that Ms. Berlinger is well versed in all of the "standard business practices."
   As a single working mother of two small boys, attending meetings is a luxury I cannot afford at the moment. Rather, I would expect "people" and "boards" to do the right thing and refund money that was clearly paid in error.

Laura M. Myers
East Windsor



Bush’s Social Security will hurt ballooning deficit
To the editor:
   
As George Will, the conservative columnist wrote in a recent column, Bush has been re-elected by only 2.9 percentage points, the smallest margin for an incumbent president. Also, the President has an approval rating less than 50 percent, lowest in 50 years for a newly elected president. Bush accomplished his election victory by successfully capitalizing on the 3 G’s — guns, gays, and God.
   He also had help from the Catholic bishops, especially in Ohio, who were opposed to a pro-choice Catholic candidate and from the Jewish voters who were afraid that Kerry would not be as pro-Israel as Bush. Even with this slim victory majority and low approval rating, Bush is pushing for partial privatization of Social Security with the moneys to be invested in the stock market. He plans to borrow the estimated $2 trillion transition cost. As a result of this and the administration’s prior lack of fiscal discipline, the federal deficit will balloon to at least $10 trillion from the present untenable level of $7.5 trillion.
   At the start of current administration, the deficit was about $5.5 trillion, accumulated mainly by the two prior Republican administrations. If Bush is allowed to continue with his fiscal insanity, the cost of servicing the current federal debt (at the current exceptionally low interest rate) would rise to well over $200 billion annually.
   The arguments for privatization of Social Security are spurious. The most compelling is that, over the long haul, the stock market will have significantly better returns than the conservatively invested Social Security fund. However, on a risk adjusted basis, the returns would not be that much better. There is no guarantee that, at retirement, the stock market is not in the midst of a prolonged secular bear market. Unfortunately, most retirees can not wait a few years for the market to recover. Also, because of the large federal debt, interest rates could rise to high levels in order to attract foreign holders of U.S. securities which, in turn, would have an adverse effect on the market and slow down economic growth.
   Another argument is that the Social Security trust fund will become insolvent in four decades. This is not true and only minor adjustments to the current system is required. Any combination of the following would suffice to keep the system solvent well into the next century: increase the eligibility age; means test the recipients to exclude those above a certain income and/or net worth level (there is no reason why Warren Buffet should collect Social Security); finally, increase the wage cap from the present level.


Bernard Wright

East Windsor



Social Security plan means benefit cuts for everyone
To the editor:
   
President Bush is endangering my retirement and the retirements of millions of Americans by taking the first step in his plan to dismantle Social Security.
   Recently, White House sources revealed their plan to cut promised benefits to retirees by nearly a third. And these cuts are guaranteed — whether you opt in to the Bush plan or not.
   For those entering the workforce today, that means more than a 25 percent cut in the retirement benefits they’re counting on; for their children, it guarantees a 46 percent cut. We pay tax on the money when it is earned. There is no need to be taxed a second time.
   We can’t stand by and let George W. Bush and the Republicans cut our promised guaranteed retirement benefits — especially when so many of us count on Social Security. Please print this letter in your paper and request feedback from the public. Thank you.

Sheila and Howard Schneider
Hightstown



Bush begins to attack retirees’ guaranteed benefits
To the editor:
   
President Bush has launched the first salvo in a full-scale assault on my retirement and the retirements of millions of Americans by unveiling in piecemeal fashion his plan to dismantle Social Security.
   My husband is already retired and I hope to join him in that status by 2015, at which point the White House privatization plan will cut our promised benefits by nearly a third.
   I am also deeply worried about the future for our twin teenage sons who will enter the workforce in the next few years. The Bush plan means more than a 25 percent cut in the retirement benefits they’re counting on; for our future grandchildren, it guarantees a 46 percent cut.
   If we roll over and ignore these ominous developments, we will let George Bush cut our promised guaranteed retirement benefits — an especially dire outcome when so many of us are counting on Social Security to help us lead a productive, healthy life when we retire.

Delia Pitts
East Windsor