Letters to the Editor

Dear Editor,

Why should judges really be retained?

Why do people vote to retain any judges? What do we really know about their performance on the bench? What does that poll of attorneys really tell us? Does that poll include prosecutors?

How do we know if a judge is fair, yet protects the citizens of Wyoming from criminals, including those that put our lives at risk when they choose to drive under the influence? Your “Circuit Court” column leaves out an essential item that would enable us to decide which judges should or should not be retained: the name of the judge rendering the sentences.

Early last summer, I read an article in this paper about a sentence given to a fifth conviction for DUI. It was a suspended sentence. I believe in second chances, but the four previous DUI convictions must not have gotten this man’s attention, nor did they help him change his behavior.

How many times had he driven under the influence, and either not gotten stopped, or not convicted? In my opinion, a fifth DUI warrants something far more serious than a suspended sentence.

Since your paper does not include the judge’s name, I had to call the clerk of the court to find out that it was Judge Perry. Guess how I’ll vote on his retention?

Floyd Morgan

Devils Tower

Dear Editor,

The upcoming ballot contains two important tax issues to decide. Whether it’s best for us to keep our hard-earned money or to turn it over to the local government for redistribution. Once a tax is in place, it’s nearly impossible to get rid of it since the entities receiving the funds will proclaim “it doesn’t raise your taxes to vote yes!”

Proposition #1 strives to collect $7.5 million dollars from our pocketbooks through an optional additional 1% sales tax. This is like the ancient practice of bloodletting where the patient barely notices the siphoning off of his vital fluids. Drop by drop.

No wonder people continue to approve this time after time, but it doesn’t have to be that way. We can hold on to our $7.5 million this time.

Proposition #2 extracts money through our property taxes for a very specific group of people. A small subset of our population.

Somehow, from the inception of statehood until just two years ago, we managed without this tax. Now, the powers that be want a permanent senior services district implemented.

Last week’s Times indicated this will be for four years, but the wording of the proposition has no such time limit. Whether for four years or forever, it’s another case of bloodletting that will go on forever. Drop by drop.

What’s next? This is exactly what’s going on in Colorado, California, Illinois and New York where people struggle under the burden of multiple taxes slowly added year after year.

Make your own decision on Election Day whether your earnings are best controlled by you or turned over to others for their favorite projects.

Mac Frank

Devils Tower