As a person with physical limitations, I felt the cartoon regarding the golf handicaps was in very poor taste. The gentleman who fought for the right to use the golf cart in the PGA Tour was standing up for his right to be given a fair chance in the game of golf. In the community, at work and in business, people who are "differently abled" have concessions made to help them be the most productive and independent they can be, which is as it should be. This should not be different just because this man's choice of work is golf. Your choosing to print this cartoon basically thumbs your nose at those of us who are able to be as productive as "normal" citizens even though we need a bit of extra help, or equipment to do so. Please be more considerate to those of us who are "different" in the future.
Rep. Irv Anderson, (DFL International Falls) went too far claiming in his Dispatch letter that local representatives "should be ashamed" for voting against his pet proposal. While complaining that Republicans use mileage allowances, he doesn't deny using them himself. Hmmm!
He proposed to "increase the mileage allowance for medical assistance recipients from 20 cents to 35 cents." Let's look at his proposal closer. If someone drove 100 miles round-trip like Anderson's example, they would receive $35. If the car gets 25 miles per gallon it would take four gallons. At $2 per gallon it would cost $8 for the trip for gas. Yet Anderson argues his increase is necessary because gas cost more. Subtracting the actual cost of $8 from the $35 allowance leaves $27 profit for the two-hour drive. Thirteen dollars and fifty cents and hour for getting sick. It's been said that you get what you pay for.
Compare profiting from driving with profiting from heating aid. If the government paid you an extra $500 every time they paid $500 to fill your fuel barrel, you might turn up the heat and open windows. When I call in sick I don't get paid, neither do I get paid mileage for going to the doctor where I also have to pay co-pay charges.
While welfare reform is a delicate issue with serious implications, do we really want to pay people on welfare more than people working? Anderson seems to think so. He consistently votes to spend more on welfare such as voting for an amendment to the welfare reform bill that able-bodied welfare recipients would not have to take a job if it didn't pay enough, even though welfare would still make up the difference. Anderson can be depended on to increase government control and spending, but that's another story.
Brainerd Dispatch ©2013. All Rights Reserved.