Just when I thought Franklin County government could sink no lower, they surprise me | Opinion
Franklin County government ethics flounders
Just when I thought Franklin County government could sink no lower, one of our commissioners, Clint Didier, has managed to lower the bar, yet again.
Instead of working out a fair severance to someone he essentially forced out of the workplace, Didier voted to fire Mike Gonzalez instead. As a taxpayer, I am sick to death of the juvenile, illegal antics brought to this county by Didier and his cohort, Mullen. Add in our auditor, Matt Beaton, and it’s a recipe for total political failure to govern.
They’ve made Pasco a laughingstock. Why are these men allowed to stay in their positions, when we are losing another excellent, valued, professional employee, Mike Gonzalez? I hear the reason Mike is leaving is because he refused to lie for these yahoos in their illegal scheme, and became a whistleblower, and in keeping with prior employees, he has probably had it up to his eyeballs as well.
We need to rid our County of these ineffective, criminal politicos who think they’re above the law. Franklin County residents, wake up and smell the coffee. Vote these losers out, every time.
Mary Anne Krol, Pasco
Why I’ll vote for Smiley
U.S. Rep. Dan Newhouse talks about China and the Chinese Communist Party more than he does the people of Central Washington.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of China. I’m no fan of communists either.
But why does Dan Newhouse talk more about China than he does finishing the Columbia Basin Project?
Why does Newhouse talk more about China than he does cleaning up Hanford? Why does Newhouse talk more about China than he does protecting our dams? Why does Newhouse talk more about China than he does the crisis at our southern border?
Why does Newhouse talk more about China than he does about inflation and Joe Biden’s reckless economy? Why does Newhouse talk more about China than he does the national debt? Why does Newhouse talk more about China than he does crime and public safety in our communities?
It’s almost as if Newhouse conducted a poll that told him if he fearmongered enough on China — and then introduced some bills to show him “taking action” — that he’d then win an election or something.
Maybe that’s all it is: Dan Newhouse cares more about politics than he does Central Washington. I’m voting Tiffany Smiley.
Jacob Giesbrecht, Basin City
No one is above the law
The 14th Amendment Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution makes it pretty clear that anyone involved in the insurrection or rebellion to overthrow the government will be disqualified from serving as president.
So why is Donald Trump allowed to run? And why is the Supreme Court of the U.S. even thinking about taking the case asking for granting the former president “Total Immunity?” whereby he can commit any crime and never be held responsible? If they dare let any authoritarian like Trump have total immunity that could be the end of our democracy that was attacked on Jan. 6, and we all saw it happening on TV.
There would be no voting or representative government. And where are the Republicans calling for law and order? These justices are stalling with their decision just like Florida federal judge Cannon in determining Trump’s trial date.
John Patrick, Pasco
Biden isn’t copying Trump’s immigration policy
Mr. Rusack (Opinion - “On illegal immigration, Biden just stole a page from Trump’s authoritarian playbook”) is correct the president did not implement a new law passed by Congress when he announced his recent executive action regarding “parole-in-place.” However, he is equally incorrect that the president “was making law up from whole cloth.”
The immigration version of “parole” allows certain individuals to remain in the United States temporarily for “urgent humanitarian reasons of significant public benefit.” It is a temporary reprieve from deportation that can also lead to work authorization and Lawful Permanent Resident status.
Congress granted this broad discretionary authority to U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in Section 212(d)(5)(A) of the Immigration & Nationality Act over 25 years ago. President Biden, as commander-in-chief, is simply instructing DHS officials to exercise this authority and grant “parole” to the spouses of U.S. citizens who have already resided in the United States for over 10 years.
Though by no means a solution to our broken system, I commend the president for utilizing existing legal authority to help families remain together, and to strengthen our communities and businesses as we continue to work toward sensible and humane comprehensive immigration reform.
Jonathan Shaklee, Richland
