TAKING THE WHEEL

From Internet regulation to immigration reform, readers discuss possible changes in direction after the 2014 election

Obama has to act unilaterally

I THOUGHT IT entertaining in the Journal that the Governor’s Office had a solution to the upcoming immigration policy (“NM leaders split on Obama immigration action,” Nov. 16).

Her spokesman indicated that President Obama should not act on his own and should work with the new Congress to compromise on an immigration policy that both sides would support.

Has Gov. Martinez not been reading or listening to the news for the last six years? The Republicans made it clear the week that President Obama was elected in 2008 that they would not support anything he was for, no matter what it was. They have followed through on that promise to this day, six years later.

But now, President Obama should compromise and cooperate. Those of us who supported Obama are disappointed in him for cooperating too much with the Republicans, who didn’t accomplish anything on health care or immigration when they had control of the Senate, House and presidency. But, they continue to be the experts on everything. So, as Gov. Martinez’s office indicated, if Obama will only think like them and do what they want, a good immigration policy is imminent.

I am looking forward to hearing the plan of the new Congress, the ball is in their court. However, in my opinion, if we want an immigration policy in this decade, President Obama better do it without Congress.

MAUREEN JOHNSON

Cochiti Lake

In need of a refresher course?

I DON’T KNOW why, but for some reason my high school civics class was one of the few classes I paid attention in. And from the attitude of the constitutional scholar sitting in the Oval Office in Washington, one of us needs a refresher course.

This president’s attitude toward this Congress is that the Congress’ entire reason for being is to do exactly what the president tells it to do. Nothing more and nothing less. I paraphrase the president: “I told — not asked, told — Speaker (John) Boehner months ago that if he didn’t pass a bill that I agreed with that I would do what I wanted without him.” That sounds like the president is talking to one of his staff who had better hop to and quickly.

My distant recollection of my civics class is that the Congress, the president and the courts were created as equal partners for the exact reason that any one of them could not tell either of the others how to act and what to do. That formula has worked pretty well for a couple of hundred years and I personally see no reason for a change now.

I realize that, as a card-carrying member of the great unwashed, I simply am not smart enough to function in today’s world but, if left alone, I think I may be able to muddle through.

I ask you now, which one of us needs the refresher course?

HARRY KERNS

Albuquerque

Cable companies in it for cash

I FIND IT interesting that your editorial titled “Obama plan a U-turn from info superhighway” (Nov. 14) mentions Obama several times and Comcast zero times.

The clear, if unstated, intent of this editorial, articulated in the last two paragraphs, is to protect the “business interests” of the large telecommunications companies. Which clearly means the right to use their monopoly position to provide inferior service at inflated monopoly prices, compared to other developed countries. Does anyone really think that the problem with cable companies is the jackboot of excessive government regulation that’s crushing their attempts to innovate in an unfettered free market?

The cable companies are only looking out for themselves. President Obama’s net neutrality proposals look out for citizens.

CREIGH GORDON

Albuquerque

No time for Obamacare repeal

HEARING ABOUT the plan to again attempt to dismantle the infamous Obamacare, I would urge sane Republicans not to waste time on the effort. Although I believe Obamacare was as ill-conceived as most of the other legislation he has endorsed, trying to overcome it now is time poorly spent.

Even though the House can pass such legislation and the Senate as well, you know it will be vetoed in the White House. So, can you assure you have the votes necessary to overcome that veto — 67 (in the Senate), I believe?

And if you cannot, haven’t you wasted more of the taxpaying public’s money? That’s what has been happening for the last six years — a Senate and a House doing almost nothing worthwhile.

Instead of trying to repeal it, why not spend the time making it work? Admittedly, that is a tall order, but wasting more time is hardly an option. JANET HARRINGTON

Albuquerque

Is Journal anti-small business?

I FIND IT ironic that this paper is advocating for its own demise. To allow Internet providers to charge extra for fast lanes will certainly guarantee that I’m reading about local news on the Comcast journal, and not your website. I highly doubt this paper will have enough money to compete with Comcast and CenturyLink.

You say that government regulation is bad and, while that may be true, if there is true competition, the Internet is already an oligopoly trending toward a monopoly. While Netflix may have enough money to stay viable, you will never see a small business be able to compete with them in the future. This paper is supporting the demise of small business.

Perhaps it’s time to get off this no-regulation-at-any-cost high horse and realize that sometimes government intervention is necessary to keep a level playing field. Corporations are only in it for the money, not for the customer. KEN WOLFE Rio Rancho

The irony is there ... UpFront

WINTHROP QUIGLEY comes UpFront on Nov. 13 to tell us that Republican opposition to the Affordable Care Act is ironic. How so, one might ask?

Well, the ACA is “designed to shore up the insurance industry, whose executive suites, it is safe to say, are heavily populated by Republicans.” Why is that “safe to say?” Quigley does not say. He offers no numbers, no surveys, no studies; it is simply “safe to say.”

Quigley is amused to hear the ACA described as “socialism” because socialism would be a “government takeover of health care” and “Obamacare is no such thing.” His description of the ACA’s workings includes these points:

“Consumers would be forced to buy and insurers would be forced to sell what the government deemed adequate coverage at an acceptable price.

“A government formula dictates what coverages must be provided and what percentage of our incomes can be spent on coverage.”

So, consumers and insurers alike are forced into Obamacare and government dictates what the product must be. Sounds like a government takeover of health care, doesn’t it?

There is indeed an irony here, but not where Quigley thinks.

JACK C. SHIVER

Albuquerque

Important omissions in article

IT IS DIFFICULT to imagine a more onesided evaluation of Obamacare than Quigley’s column of Nov. 13.

Some important and significant omissions are: the president and numerous acolytes repeatedly and falsely stated the law assured “you can keep your plan and your doctor”; untold thousands had their health care premiums and deductibles rise dramatically, despite assurances that costs would decrease; plans available under Obamacare provided coverage that for many carried absurdity to the extreme — pregnancy care for females well beyond the childbearing age; and MIT professor (Jonathan) Gruber — a principal architect of the law — bragging that making the law non-transparent and lying about its impact was necessary because otherwise it would not pass Congress. JOHN HALE Albuquerque

Letting immigrants cut in line

IMMIGRANTS FROM all over the world leave their countries due to the corruption and the lack of the rule of law, only to come here — a country envied due to its rule of law — to then demand and protest that we overlook our laws, therefore becoming just like the lawless country they just left.

Our leader, who is the chief enforcement officer, must enforce all laws as currently written, whether he likes them or not or what he thinks they should be. All law enforcement officers — from cops, judges and district attorneys to attorneys general — must also follow every law, again, as currently written. Those who refuse to follow the rule of law need to be removed, period!

We owe it to every legal immigrant who did it the hard way, the long way, the honorable way and who are now the most bitter at those who do it the illegal way. Surprisingly to them, with the approval of their new leader acting just like their old leader, who was most likely a dictator who does what he wants, while at the same time bypassing the very democratic institutions and Constitution that he used to gain power.

It’s time for a “Million Legal March” on D.C. and across America. Speak up, legal immigrants, and tell Obama how bitter you are for giving illegals cuts to the front of the line.

S. JAMES CHAVEZ

Albuquerque