Related articles:

Letters to the editor Letters to the editor Letters to the editor Letters to the editor Letters to the editor Letters to the editor Letters to the editor Letters to the editor Letters to the editor LETTERS to the editor

General
CORT
Warehouse Supervisor General
CORT
WAREHOUSE/DRIVER Health Care
Rio Salado College
PA's/Online Instructors Education
Assessment Technology, Inc
Social Studies Content Writer Construction
Komatsu Equipment Co
Mechanic

Re: the Oct. 8 Ad Watch "Prop. 200 and payday loans."

Thanks for investigating and publishing the truth about Prop. 200. This initiative is simply no reform whatsoever and would make this legal form of loan sharking permanent in Arizona.

The payday-loan industry knows that in 2010 there will be a much smarter and consumer-friendly Legislature in place. The law allowing the industry to continue swindling low-income people and families will sunset and we can say goodbye to this industry driven by greed.

This can only happen if Arizonans vote "no" on Prop. 200.

Payday lenders are spending millions of dollars on their campaign to trick voters into voting "yes" on this proposition.

The truth is, they are spending some of the very money that they have taken from Arizona families by pulling them into debt traps.

Please join me in voting "no" on Proposition 200.

Proposition 200, the so-called Payday Loan Reform Act, is anything but a reform. It is put forward by the payday industry to ensure that they don't have to go out of business in 2010.

Many Arizonans, including such faith leaders as the Episcopal bishop, the Methodist bishop, the Arizona Ecumenical Council and Roman Catholic Bishop Gerald F. Kicanas have urged the defeat of Prop. 200.

The John McCain and Sarah Palin campaign is using character attacks as a campaign tactic instead of discussing issues that are crucial to the future of Americans.

This has demonstrated that they have nothing substantive to offer to voters.

What the McCain-Palin campaign does have to offer is "fear itself."

By far the most vital issue in importance and significance to all Americans was brought by Tom Brokaw in a question at the presidential debate. In essence, Brokaw asked each candidate if health care was a right or a responsibility. Barack Obama said it was a right and John McCain said it was a responsibility. Both candidates by their responses finally and clearly defined their respective party philosophies.

According to our Constitution, individuals are granted life, liberty and the pursue of happiness, nothing more. Those words alone created over centuries what America is today.

I would like readers to examine and answer Brokaw's question carefully before voting Nov. 4.

I don't refer to John McCain publicly as my "friend." I wish he would grant me the same courtesy.

At the debate on Tuesday, Sen. John McCain claimed, as he has in the past, that he "knows" how to get Osama bin Laden. My question: If the senator truly puts his country first, why would we have to wait until after he is elected to learn how to catch bin Laden? Will he share his plan with President Obama?

Why do Barack Obama and John McCain want the job? The winner will be the loser — four years of crisis after crisis.

He will inherit the bear market; disappearing pensions and dividends; bank failures; the Afghanistan war; the Iraq war; Russian saber rattling; Iran, Pakistan and North Korea (all with unstable leaders) near nuclear capability; an energy/environmental crisis; a stupendous budget deficit; and disgruntled constituents.

One would have to question the sanity of anyone who runs.

I recently moved to Arizona from Michigan. Four years ago, the citizens of Michigan made a regretful decision when they voted for a constitutional amendment to define marriage.

The proponents of the Michigan amendment told the voters it would not affect domestic partner benefits. But no sooner had the amendment passed than proponents began suing municipalities to remove all domestic partner benefits. Michigan suffered from the costly lawsuits and loss of benefits to hard-working people and their families.

I hope Arizonans will be wiser than Michiganders and will vote "no" on Proposition 102.

This proposal hurts more families than it protects by making them even more vulnerable during these challenging economic times. Arizonans can ill-afford the economic and social consequences.

Re: the Oct. 8 article "TUSD board ignores newcomers, OKs $80K contract."

TUSD is on a very slippery slope with its decision to be trained in so-called "policy governance."

Policy governance is the new fad among school systems across the nation, an industry known for jumping on a new band-wagon every decade or so.

If this one doesn't work, the losers will be the students and the taxpayers.

Years ago I learned that when an organization can't show results, managers can keep their jobs by changing the structure of the organization. In doing so, it takes years before the results of the changes can be determined. In the meantime, money is spent, careers are made and retirement pensions are earned.

I was recently involved in an organization making the switch to policy governance. It has a long learning curve. It is also prone to arbitrary decision-making in the vacuum created by dispensing with the usual checks and balances of a traditional corporate board structure.

After three years, that organization's reserves had been spent without any progress having been made.