Newsday letters to the editor for Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Op-ed omits we’re a nation of laws

In “Melania & Isabelle: A tale of two immigrants” [Opinion, March 10], writer Mike Vogel compared two women and asked, what’s wrong with this picture?

As Melania Knauss, Melania Trump was awarded an EB-1 employment-based visa for “extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, etc.” As an accomplished runway and fashion model, she got the visa even without a Nobel Prize. Was that a subjective call? Absolutely.

The other woman in Vogel’s piece, Isabelle Muhlbauer, was brought to America illegally by her parents. They skirted our immigration laws. She is now doing wonderful work helping U.S. veterans.

However, the fact remains that one person followed immigration law and the other’s family broke immigration law. As a nation of laws, we should reward one and not the other. That is what is right with this picture.

Thomas Testa, Baldwin

Retirement savings plan has flaws

It seems some private sector employees who don’t have employer-sponsored plans need a push to save for retirement, but without matching funds, where’s the incentive? This is a flaw in the Secure Choice program proposed by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo [“Wise idea to help employees save,” Editorial, March 12].

Additionally, individual retirement accounts are managed and come with a fee, however modest. Since IRAs charge steep penalties for early withdrawal, why participate when you can save on your own, invest your own money and in an emergency, withdraw the funds unencumbered?

It’s interesting that the state sees a need for a program like this, yet doesn’t include public sector employees, who get a guaranteed pension on the backs of the taxpayers. Private sector employers abandoned pensions decades ago because they are unsustainable. But try to get our politicians to stand up to the unions — good luck!

Frank McQuade, Miller Place

Union membership worth the dues

In the case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Mark Janus contends his union’s actions in collective bargaining amount to political speech, and he is denied his First Amendment rights if he has to pay the required “fair share” fees [“Union case should be an easy decision,” Letters, March 8].

Nevertheless, Janus continued to reap the benefits his union acquired in the form of higher pay, health care coverage and a pension. His argument is akin to the pacifist who feels he or she shouldn’t have to pay federal income taxes because some of that money goes toward America’s weapons programs and combat operations.

Nevertheless, the U.S. military protects the pacifist, despite himself, and the same is true for unions and people like Janus. However, Janus had a choice: He could have chosen a job not represented by a union.

Mike Simonelli, Brentwood

Editor’s note: The writer is the treasurer of the Suffolk County Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association.

New laws needed on guns? No, and yes

A letter writer called for outlawing and confiscating “assault rifles” because he believes that only law enforcement or the military should be allowed to have use of these weapons [“Vote to ban, remove assault rifles,” Letters, March 13].

If this is what he believes, then I ask, why not start by removing all of these dangerous weapons that are in the hands of criminals and felons, as well as others who are presently breaking numerous laws by even owning them? This can be done right now, with not a single new law written. So, let’s enforce the many firearms laws, regulations, requirements and restrictions in place at present.

If this writer gets his wish to remove certain firearms from law-abiding citizens, criminals would still have them because they don’t obey the law. Once these are removed from criminals, only then would I be willing to discuss making new firearms legislation, if it would even be necessary at that point.

Ray Ceruti, Eastport

Editor’s note: The writer is a member of the National Rifle Association.

Does anyone really believe that President Donald Trump is going to follow through on any of his statements supporting reasonable gun ownership restrictions? He has not said he will pursue any limits on the ownership of assault weapons.

This is after publicly chastising legislators for being afraid of the National Rifle Association and their failure to assure public safety. As the country’s leader, it’s his job to create the political will for change and to use his position to do what the vast majority of Americans support: limit semi-automatic weapons and tighten background checks.

The people I know who still support Trump, when asked why, state that he tells it like it is. Really? It seems as if he just states whatever happens to be passing through his head at the moment. That’s pandering. He says whatever the people around him want to hear and then backtracks shamelessly.

He doesn’t have the stomach for a battle with the NRA. That is disgraceful and weak.

Cynthia Lovecchio, Glen Cove