Letters to the Editor Bedford Journal

Bringing cancer awareness to D.C.

To the Editor:

Last week, I traveled to Washington, D.C., with more that 750 of my fellow American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN) volunteers from across the nation to urge Congress to support policies that would help prevent and fight cancer.

I called on lawmakers to increase federal funding for cancer research, co-sponsor legislation to improve patient quality of life, and remove financial barriers to colorectal cancer screenings for seniors.

When I met with Sen.Kelly Ayotte, Rep. Annie Kuster, and staff from Rep. Frank Guinta’s and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen’s offices, I let them know that those touched by cancer in New Hampshire and across the country are counting on them to support legislation that would help make cancer history. With 587,000 American’s dying of cancer each year, it is imperative that Congress put partisanship aside and make defeating cancer a top national priority.

I know these conversations in D.C. made a difference, and I encourage you to add your voice. Visit www.onedegreeproject.org and let our government know that we won’t stop fighting until cancer is history.

Carolyn Claussen, M.D.


The failure of redistribution plan

To the Editor:

Most income inequality statistics are disputable, particularly Mr. Carr’s reference to the discredited Prof. Piketty analysis. However, starvation from ultimate redistribution schemes, whether Plymouth Colony (1620), Ukraine (1932), Socialist India (1960) or North Korea (2015), etc., occurred not directly from murderous violence, but from fundamental failure of redistribution philosophy. Although "redistribution lite" has less severe consequences, there are fundamental reasons for resulting lowered standards of living.

Reward for producing what consumers value enough to pay (work) for and consequences for failure are fundamental for incentive, responsibility for one’s actions and learning from experience. Analogously, redistribution of sporting event (e.g., basketball) scores during events would result in no incentive to achieve, no responsibility for training, no evaluation of performance and disintegration of the sport. Hence, redistribution systems substitute government force (violence) for natural consequences.

Although one can set arbitrary prices, the voluntary free market is the only possible way of determining value. Only increased production (supply) and productivity can reduce real prices (cost of living) and increase standards of living. Only capital investment can supply the equipment, technology, etc. for increased production and productivity.

Moving money from private economy to political economy (taxation) adds nothing to the economy, but predominantly exchanges capital investment that increases productivity for consumption expenditures. Redistribution from someone who would have built a house or invested in equipment to someone not working exchanges productive jobs for nonproductive consumption. Redistribution to low wage employees removes incentive to improve skills or relocate for more productive or higher valued production.

Thus, redistribution prevents the taxed from obtaining their desires, while preventing beneficiaries from moving to the most efficient and highest valued production. This subsidizing laborers in effect "warehouses" laborers like the subsidized excess wheat and cotton production in the 1950s.

The percentage of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent increased from 19 percent in 1980 to 38 percent in 2012, regardless of the drop of nominal rates from 70 percent to the current 35 percent. As globalization of markets increases, increased taxes on capital providers results in exodus of capital and jobs to other countries where after-tax returns become greater.

All these inefficiencies and misallocation of resources increases costs to the poorest, removing any benefit of redistribution. All government spending, nearly all redistributive, has increased from 7 percent of GDP in 1900 to 40 percent today – an apparent failure. Morally, theft is the forceful taking of another’s rightfully earned possessions (income), regardless of means or motive.

Eldon Rash


To the Editor:

Do your children attend Riddle Brook Elementary School? Do your children play soccer or baseball at the Legacy Park fields? If so, you might be interested to know that the town of Bedford and Verizon Wireless plan to construct a 190 foot cell tower right in your back yard.

Cell towers emit Radio-Frequency/Electromagnetic Fields (RF/EMF) 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The FCC states that a planning or zoning board may not take the safety of your children into account, but you can and should.

If approved, this tower will set an ugly precedent. All of the other cell towers in Bedford are is Commercial areas. This one will be right in the middle of a residential area. It will be visible from Legacy Park, Riddle Brook, Wallace Road, Magazine Street, New Boston Road, Spring Hill, and Power Hill, just to name a few. If this tower is placed here, the next one might be in your back yard.

Please come to the next Zoning board meeting on Oct. 20 at 7 p.m. to voice your opinion.

Kathleen Bemiss