Published: Wednesday, July 9 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
I think the letter writer and many of you are not understanding the difference
between a Civil Servant, an elected official, and a political appointee. I
would encourage you to figure out the difference before posting. A
civil servant is an competitive employee. He/she applies and is hired for a job
somewhat like a private sector job, interviews, applications, etc. They are
generally paid on a scale where everyone in the same job is paid in the same
salary band and their jobs are classified based on the position description and
responsibilities. Political affiliation is not an issue, it is inappropriate to
discuss, and they serve the pubic regardless of their politics. An
elected official is just that, elected by the public in a certain area. They
are politically affiliated. A political appointee is in a position
deemed by Congress to be appointed by the President. They are not necessarily
aligned with a political party, but serve at the pleasure of the President. He
can hire, fire, replace, etc. for any reason he/she deems appropriate. Most
agency heads are political appointees. Please learn the difference.
It makes you look foolish when you don't.
51 percent or more of Americans support abortion, marriage equality, and the
civil rights act of 1964. 51 percent or more Americans do not support bribery
for free speech, shorter voting times, and the elimination of min wage.The repubs have lost the popular vote in White House elections in 5 out of the
last 6 elections.So if repubs want to be ruled by "the
majority" then I say, "Amen!"
J ThompsonSPRINGVILLE, UTWe have an all volunteer military. If you
do not accept the responsibilies of military life, you have no obligation to
enlist.We live in a Republic where the majority choose our
Representatives. Those Representatives are duty bound to vote the will of the
people, not to cower when policially active minorities try to change society.I sense someone’s guilt. Sorry you did not serve our Country, but
as you stated, it was YOUR choice.I chose to Serve – as both active
Duty and Civil Service.FYI – President Obama is our duly
elected Representative. By the Majority -- Twice!However, you are
right about one thing; he does not need to “cower” to the minority.
========== L WhiteSpringville, UTLDS Church policy
– “The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals
or public demonstrations concerning abortion.”There -- Legislatively
neutral, period.Sorry if you disagree with it, but if you are going
to lecture, you are going to need to lecture the LDS Church – not me.I will follow the Prophet.
Pro-life verses pro-birth.I rarely hear from anybody who is pro-life
- that is, they want the baby born, and they support fully funded pre-natal
health care for poor women, and they want WIC and other nutrition programs to be
fully funded, and they agree education should be fully funded and teachers well
paid, and they agree that childcare is needed and the working poor should get
help to cover their childcare expenses and that children need full medical care
in clean and well run settings, and education opportunities for single mothers
will improve the lives of children...Nope, nope, nope. None of that,
it would be socialist. We'll complain about all that.Just no
abortions. You are not "pro-life." You are
"pro-birth" and also "anti-child."
@J ThompsonSPRINGVILLE, UT...Congress is duty bound to represent the
majority.====You know, you are only making
weakening your arguement.The majority of Americans are in favor
of:Medical Marijuana, are Pro-choice, Favor Gun Control
- ioncluding a complete ban on assault rifles,Same Sex Marriage,Raising Taxes on the Uber Wealthy,Less Coal and Fossil Fuels,Getting out of the Middle East,Tighter controls on Business, Raising the Minumum wage, Support Immigration Reform, and Dislike the Tea-Party.You are entitled to your opinions, but
you do not control Reality.
And what pray tell does abortion have to do with being a civil servant?Elected republicans trot it out every election but your civil servants
don't perform them?
@ george of the jungle, automatic increases have not been happening for federal
employees. I've seen it in the private sector. And do you even know the
meaning and context of "compounded"?
@ Mike Richards, "In a Democratic Republic, the majority decides the
election." You wouldn't know that by the behavior of the right wing.
(Who I think would prefer a totalitarian regime as long as it's
Anyone else see the irony in Michele Richards lecturing us about majority
rule?If the majority ruled then the majority of their platform would
be completely ignored.It's only through our system that a small
vocal minority, like the tea party, can shut down the entire government for
throwing a fit. In a parliamentary system, the tea party and their cohorts would
be completely ignored.
@L WhiteDoesn't it tell us that the majority rarely agree to do
anything that is immoral or unjust? =========So you
support Gay Marriage right? The majority of the country does. The
majority of the country also supports Freedom of Choice.So is this
tyranny of the majority suppressing the wisdom of the minority?
george of the jungle said "I think the writer is referring to those who has
an automatic 3% cost of living increase compounded every year."Then, of course, you are NOT talking about federal employees who got a 1.5%
pay raise last year after no pay raises for the previous 4 years. Oh, and then
there was the sequester that took 20% of the salary for no other reason than
Congress didn't do it's job. So who are you referring to?
Mike Richards said, "It's interesting to read the polls. Obama would
lose if an election were held today."That statement could have
been said about most presidents, especially at the halfway mark of a two term
president. But the only poll that really counts is the one that's taken on
election day. Obama won and Romney lost. Accept it and move on.
I do not support Gay Marriage, but I don't oppose Gay Marriage either. I
do support the concept that an adult American can do as he pleases so long as he
doesn't infringe on the rights and freedoms of others. I do
not believe that the majority of adult Americans support Gay marriage. Just
because we grant certain freedoms to others, doesn't mean that we support
all the things that a person might do.
All people who receive compensation from the United States government for
services rendered, are employees of the United States government. It
doesn't really matter how they got the job, they are expected to perform
the duties of their job according to the rules of the job description as
specified by our government.
Stormwalker: "Pro-life verses pro-birth rant"So let me get
this straight...it is not enough to advocate not killing an unborn child. You
must advocate cradle to grave entitlements for that child or you are not
"pro-life"???Is that really what you are saying?I suppose by that kind of logic, you can't be "pro-choice" either
unless you advocate that a woman should have a choice in EVERYTHING. (e.g. can
choose to not pay taxes, to not sign up for Obamacare, to carry a gun without a
"With Utah being the most conservative State in the Union, the likelihood of
our members of Congress voting with liberals should be somewhere between nil and
never."What an odd statement. I assumes there are no issues
in which conservative and liberal agree upon. What a profound indication of
how the writer views those who don't agree with him on all ideologic
issues. It is an all or nothing proposition. If a "liberal" were to
come up with a good highway bill... it is mandated that Utah's delegation
must vote against it.Mike - we are Americans first - all living
under the same constitution. This attempt to divide this nation into two
opposing sides is what will turn what is the arguably greatest nation on earth
to yet another Iraq, a nation divided against its self sole based on
ideologies.Its a sad statement that you make - that we must be
opposed to everything the other side agree with. And it surely doesn't
reflect the council of the LDS leadership.
Open Minded MormonI think Mike Richards trumped your argument.
However, having read these posts my conclusion is that civil servants, and
political servants have different roles. Certainly a fireman or policeman
should not care about the politics of any person they serve. However, that
should be the main thing a politician should care about when representing his
constituency. Only the office of President of the U.S. can be said to be for
all the people, as well as the Executive Branch workers who are appointed or
overseen (military, FBI, Justice,ect.) by the President. Every other elected
political office holder is representing a local entity. State or district.
@JoeCapitalist2First, I did not say "cradle to grave," I
said making sure the resources are available to support the *child* you demanded
be born. Easy to pass laws that only impact others. Second,
"choice," as I am sure you know, refers to reproductive choice and not
other activities. You are pro-birth when you want to force
government control over a womb that is not inside your own body. You are
pro-life when you support children having the resources they need to grow up -
food, adequet shelter, fully funded school, healthcare. I know
perhaps a dozen women who have talked about the decision to have an abortion. In
each case it was a wrenching decision, and often they talked about being in
poverty already and not having resources or support to have another baby. And I should note that states mandating comprehensive sex education
throughout school and mandating inexpensive and widely available contraceptives
have the lowest teen birth and lowest abortion rates, while states with no
little or no sex ed and hard to obtain contraceptives have high teen births and
I think the author of the letter may have been thinking about more than just
politics. The recent case of the police officer (civil servant) who refused to
do his job because he disliked the group he was supposed to be serving, for
example.@Stormwalker;Great commentary about the true
effect of the "pro-lifers". If ever there was an oxymoron,
"pro-life" is it.
Have your words ever been twisted? Have you ever been railroaded by others? If
so you may have some understanding of why Lois Learner (possibly) chose to take
the 5th amendment and not testify before Congress. Having had my words twisted
in times past and also having others try to railroad me, I fully supported her
in this.When she exercised her 5th amendment right, tea party types
in Congress tried to say she had waived her 5th amendment rights when she denied
having done anything wrong. Really?, how does this do that? And if there is
some rule that defines this as doing that, shouldn't people testifying
before Congress be warned of this? shouldn't she have been warned? Similar
to when a person is given their Miranda rights?At this point, the
conservatives in Congress deserve to twist in the wind and be frustrated in
their efforts after what they tried and are trying to do to Lois Learner. Tea
party types say their are all about the law and about the constitution, well
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments