'Progressive' ideas don't hold water

April 23, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
IBJ Letters To The Editor

I read with interest John Guy’s [viewpoint column] titled “Where are the progressives?” (April 11, 2011) and found his list of antis enlightening. Since rebutting each and every point would require that IBJ give me a column of my own, I’ll just hit my personal highlights.

“Progressives” are the flat-earthers of the 21st century. Any idea that is anathema to that which the “progressive” holds to be sacrosanct is rejected as extreme or in Guy’s more polite telling, “anti.”

Every “anti” from the “progressive” is distilled down to a ridiculous, narrow, self-congratulating dismissal of other points of view. Few people I know are anti-tax, anti-health care reform, anti-government, anti-right-to-choose or most of the other things that Guy alleges that we non-progressives believe.

We aren’t anti-tax, just anti-government waste. We aren’t anti-Islam. We are anti-extremist, whether Islamic, Christian or “progressive.” We aren’t anti-immigrant, we are anti-illegal immigration. We aren’t anti-teacher. We are concerned taxpayers who have no voice at the bargaining table. We aren’t anti-right to choose: we want to choose. We have a Constitution which says that only Congress can pass laws. We object to “progressive” legal doctrine which skirts the constitutional framework to encourage an activist judiciary to pass laws by fiat.

I agree with Guy and believe that America will return to its optimistic roots. It happened in 1980 after four disastrous years of a “progressive” administration, and I believe that the return to optimism began at the polls in November 2010. We hope that the return of optimism in America’s future will be fully realized in the elections to be held in November 2012, and that the concept of American exceptionalism and limited government will be fully embraced again.


Craig Gigax


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.