CHICKENS

One bad rooster does not warrant change in the law

“You gotta be kidding me!” Was my response to the proposed change of rules on keeping chickens in unincorporated Ada County. If approved, those people living on less than an acre of land, will have to show proof of being involved in an agriculture education program (such as Future Farmers of America or 4-H) to keep backyard chickens.

Currently, there are 9 million Americans keeping backyard chickens. That number is expected to double this year. If you keep hens, you benefit from the nutritionally superior eggs, natural pest control and nitrogen-rich fertilizer.

Food recalls seem to be abundant, these days. In August of 2010, the Food and Drug Administration recalled 550 million salmonella-contaminated eggs. More, now than ever, people want to know from where their food comes.

I understand this “proposed amendment to the ordinance” in unincorporated Ada County is a result of one homeowner who had several unruly roosters and there were many complaints. The change would give animal control officers clear guidelines for dealing with these types of offenders. However, if the change is approved, it seems the old adage is true: one bad egg spoils the whole bunch.

GRETCHEN ANDERSON, Eagle

HEALTH CARE

Justice has no business taking activist position

Clearly the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (PPAHCA) is unconstitutional. It demands everyone must buy health insurance or be faced with a fine. As written Justice Roberts agreed it was unconstitutional on the basis that the commerce clause does not allow punishment for not engaging in commerce, but he re-wrote the act by calling the fine a tax.

Nowhere within the act will you find the word “tax.” Congress intended it to be a fine, but avoided using the word tax. Roberts is not a legislator and has no business writing law. Regardless, as defined in this instance, a tax is still a punishment for not engaging in commerce.

Charles Krauthammer, June 29 in the Statesman, succinctly stated Roberts’ motives for his decision. It was to rein in the commerce clause, but upheld the law so that the appearance of neutrality of the court was maintained. Thus, he satisfies his belief that he is the guardian of the court’s legitimacy, reputation, and stature.

Obviously, the court’s role is to rule on the constitutionality, not on protecting the image of the court. Also, by accommodating Obama, he violated his oath of office and created an impeachable offense.

ROBERT B. MURRAY II, Caldwell

No need to rewrite law; work with what’s there

Some thoughts on health care: For one thing, Blue Cross and other big insurers are notorious for choosing profits over people. If they are up in arms over the new laws, I find that a good indication that those laws will put people over profits and should be supported. Secondly, although no one will argue that government regulations are anywhere near efficient right now, I think we have no other good options when it comes to health care (the GOP certainly hasn’t put forward any).

Saying that the solution is to have the feds stay out of it and let people save money every month in an HSA to meet their own health costs, or let the market do its thing and it will all work great is pure nonsense. One look at Wall Street ought to make clear what happens when the feds just leave the big money guys alone to do as they please. They make billions at our expense. Especially after the Supreme Court ruling, I feel we would all be far better served to put our heads together and fine tune this new law rather than wasting time trying for a repeal with no good alternative.

CAROLYN SWAIN, Boise

Don’t forfeit rights to the federal government

The states must give themselves legal authority to establish an exchange because it is unconstitutional for the federal government to usurp states’ rights ... lesson learned from the recent Supreme Court arguments. That means, we are under no obligation to do so and are oath-bound to legally block a law that violates the Tenth Amendment.

The law allows the federal government to dictate the provisions of the exchange if the state does not “substantially enforce related provisions.” In addition, once the state has set up the framework, it allows the federal law to commandeer it through regulations. Hence, there is no such thing as a “state-run exchange.”

Neither the federal government nor the state have the money to set up and maintain this bureaucracy; it must be taken from the taxpayers. The exchange will create 159 new government bureaucracies and a taxpayer-funded lobby dedicated to fighting its repeal.

When the government bureaucracies start handing out taxpayer funds in 2014, private insurance companies that receive subsidies will be very happy.

By creating an exchange, we will have forfeited our liberty.

CORI WESTLAKE, Eagle

Health care law is evidence that Obama must go

Wow, the Supreme Court deems Obamacare is the right thing to do for the American public.

My gut is telling me to run away as fast and as far away as I can. I have medical insurance and approximately 49 percent of my check is for medical insurance, another 15 to 18 percent going for taxes.

In my view, the president is trying to make this a socialistic country more than it is now.

We need him out of office plus change the faces in the Legislature and Congress. It’s such a shame to penalize people who can’t afford medical insurance because they’re unemployed, elderly or simply a struggling working person.

How dare our president be so callous and self-righteous to think this will benefit anyone but him. Mr. President and Congress— how about you pay for those who simply can’t afford it? I am over-taxed enough. Millions of Americans feel the same as I do. It’s time we took back our rights and got rid of the garbage!

SHELLY HOUGH, Boise

OTTER & FIRE

Victims deserved more than Otter passing by

It was reported in the Idaho Statesman on Wednesday, July 4, that the day before, Gov. Butch Otter toured fire-ravaged residential areas of Pocatello in a Lincoln Navigator.

As his party drove past burned down homes, they observed residents raking through piles of rubble.

Never once did the vehicle stop so the governor could get out of his comfort zone and talk to and hug the victims, express his sympathy and love, tell the victims what the state could do to help them get their lives back. Instead the Lincoln drove on.

When asked why he didn't stop to commiserate with victims, he said that he "felt it might be inappropriate to chat with distraught homeowners this soon after they suffered a huge loss."

I could be wrong, but to me it seems that there is never a bad or wrong time to show compassion to someone who is hurting, and to receive it from the chief executive, I think would have meant a lot to those people.

DAVID G. CLARK, Nampa