Proposed EPA rule will thwart Clean Water Act

The federal Navigable Waters Protection Rule announced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in January is nothing but a dirty water rule in disguise. While the Trump administration claims that the purpose of its rule is to end uncertainty over what waters are protected by the Clean Water Act, it really is part of a continued campaign by the Trump Administration to roll back basic environmental safeguards. The Trump Administration's own government advisory board of scientists wrote that the proposed rule neglects established science.

Unregulated pollution of our waterways is wrong. The dirty water rule eliminates many legal protections for waters that feed into our rivers and lakes and leaves them vulnerable to dumping by polluters. The impacts of the pollution will not stop at any boundary. Water has no boundaries. Polluted water will drain into surrounding rivers and streams and threaten the health, environment and economy of residents and their surrounding communities.

If the Trump Administration won't defend our water, our state and local governments must step up to the challenge of protecting our waters.

Kimberly Neely Du Buclet, Commissioner

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District

Judge candidate focused on service, justice

Judges in McHenry County and throughout our nation should always be above politics. Unfortunately that is no longer the case with too many judges. Judge Hansen of the McHenry County Circuit Court is different. I have personally known Judge Hansen for many years. I know Judge Hansen to be a moral man, a faith-filled man, a caring family man of high integrity. Judge Hansen always puts integrity above politics. He uses both the law and his personal family experiences to reach reasoned decisions for all who appear before him in family court, under trying circumstances. To improve our judicial system, we need better judges, like Judge Hansen.

Judge Hansen's background is service, not politics. Previously, he's been an attorney for individuals, small businesses and some local municipalities. Before that, he served on a nonprofit Task Force on family violence, an organization providing services to domestic violence victims. He helped pilot a program providing training to law enforcement, child protection services, school personnel and social workers on the effects upon children witnessing domestic violence. As McHenry County has seen in the recent past, we need dedicated people who will stand-up and protect our children from violence. Judge Hansen is that man.

During the upcoming primary election, Judge Hansen is facing two long time politically connected people, politics as usual in McHenry County. It seems every election is a recycling of connected politicians. The people of McHenry County deserve much better. Let's get what we deserve by keeping Judge Hansen on the bench and keeping politics out of the courtroom.

Please join me in keeping Judge Hansen working on the bench in McHenry County. Vote for Judge Justin Hansen for Circuit Judge on Tuesday March 17.

Bernie Van Ham

McHenry

Correcting the record on single-payer health care

In response to Mr. Downing's letter on single-payer health care, I must point out the factual error. Both Senators Sanders and Warren have proposed Medicare for All as their basis for a single-payer system. Medicare for All does not mean that "Illinoisans could see any doctor without a single co-pay, deductible, or premium charge." What it does mean, is the removal of the clause restricting access to those under the age of 65.

Perpetuating the myth of Democrats promising "free" things to get elected is damaging to both the candidates and the viability of the policy proposal. Currently Americans enrolled in Medicare do pay premiums, and because of the broken nature of the healthcare system, what is not covered by either Medicare or private Medigap/ Medicare Advantage insurance after the fact.

And even if copays, deductibles, and premiums disappear, it must be noted that it would be the result of reprioritizing tax dollars already collected, or revenue from closing corporate tax loop holes. There are numerous advantages to a single-payer system, however "free" is not one of them.

Amy Wasowicz

Bensenville

A dog's sense

A good friend of mine (who I met online in a group called Doggyspace, which I found out about in August 2008 from the Daily Herald) has a very smart golden retriever named Enzo and they live on a mountaintop in Leadville, Colorado. Whenever Enzo happens to hear Trump's voice on TV, he growls until it is over.

Karen Schlabach

Glen Ellyn


We must get past 'isms' and talk about ideas

In his State of the Union speech, President Trump was quite vocal about his rejection of socialism. For example, "Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country. America was founded on liberty and independence - not government coercion, domination and control. We are born free, and we will stay free. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country." For this, he received a standing ovation from the Republican side of the aisle.

In the same speech and to the same standing ovation, Mr. Trump promised, "We will always protect your Medicare and we will always protect your Social Security. Always." I'm trying to understand, how is Social Security not the first step on the slippery slope to socialism? The first word of Social Security is only missing the "ism'.

In the speech, Trump said, "One hundred thirty-two lawmakers in this room have endorsed legislation to impose a socialist takeover of our health care system, wiping out the private health insurance plans of 180 million very happy Americans. To those watching at home tonight, I want you to know: We will never let socialism destroy American health care." I really want to understand; how is Medicare for those older than 65 a sacred cow and Medicare for anyone younger than 65 a health care takeover?

Social Security was passed in 1935 amid protests of "Socialism." Medicare was passed in 1965, again to dire warnings from leaders as influential as Ronald Reagan himself, who warned, "Medicare will usher in federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country."

Isn't it time that we get past the "isms" and discuss the ideas? Is Medicare something that we have embraced as an American right? If so, why not consider the possibility of Medicare for all Americans? Isn't it time?

Greg Van Dahm

Roselle

What congressional district doesn't need

In reference to the recent letter, "Ives ready, able to win for GOP in 6th District": To begin, "voters will have ..." You mean Republican voters. I haven't read such a "puff piece" in recent years.

The writer goes on at length citing a litany of virtues possessed by her candidate, but not one specific program or achievement. The writer claims that the candidate is "battle-tested," a "counter-puncher," "can advance people's agenda," "expresses brutal honesty," yada yada.

This district doesn't need another climate denier, budget deficit enabler and Trump disciple.

Don't forget, the previous Republican capped your property tax deduction at $10,000. Is she ready to undo this tax cap?

Kenneth C. Marz

Glen Ellyn

Environmental losses shouldn't be ignored

John Fischer recently wrote a letter defending actions of the Trump administration and the EPA. He stated that the administration is "not rolling back regulations" that protect our environment. This is false. Trump has taken great pride in eliminating environmental protections, claiming they are too much of a burden on the business community.

Just last week, the Trump administration ended federal protection for millions of miles of streams, arroyos and wetlands, "a sweeping environmental rollback that could leave the waterways more vulnerable to pollution from development, industry and farms," according to The Associated Press,
There are many sources tracking the regulatory rollbacks. Harvard University which lists about 70 specific environmental protections that have been eliminated under the Trump administration.

Of course there can be many valid opinions regarding the changes that have been made, but facts should not be ignored or misstated to promote a point of view.

Gerry McGovern

Naperville

The divide is between corporations, people

We have been ingrained in the concept of the political subdivisions known as red-versus-blue states and left versus right. This is frequently identified as conservative versus liberal.

The conservative is supposedly the person who believes in the status quo, in historical familiarity, in biblical truths, in a literal interpretation of the Constitution (and for some a literal interpretation of the Bible). And liberals are progressives, persons who believe in a liberal interpretation of the Constitution, of advancing freedoms for women, immigrants and those citizens identified as other than heterosexual. Issues such as abortion and homosexual marriage are frequently used to divide conservatives and liberals.

But one should consider the political structure of the nation we emulated so much in law, economics and foreign policy. England has established a more transparent reality in its houses of parliament - the House of Commons and the House of Lords. They also have the basic political parties divided into the Labor party and the Tory party. This I believe informs us in a more honest fashion the real cultural divide and struggle that has plagued our two countries for decades.

In reality the struggle in America is the common people versus the corporate power represented most recently by the Republican Party. Historically, the Democratic Party has been the party of labor unions, of the workers struggling against the corporation. The reason Republicans support Trump is because Trump supports anybody with money, especially large corporations.

Even his appointment of supposedly conservative judges to the Supreme Court and to the federal bench has been in essence because they have and will favor corporations in their official decisions.

Richard Taylor

Warrenville

Politicians did not support flag, truth

Like many of you, I watched as senators placed their right hand over their heart and pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. After watching these hearings, I would say you did not pledge allegiance to our flag. Some pledged to a liar, a cheat a thief, a con artist and as immoral as they come and a danger to the United States of America.

Shame Shame Shame. Why? Because you were afraid of him and losing your jobs on the next election. and well you should be.

Some say It was a waste of time and money. Some say yes. Some say no. Yes, because you made a mockery of our Constitution, but no because now we know who are. You knew in your own mind before it began how you were going to vote, as we the American people know how we will vote on Nov. 3.

Donna F. Lambert

Lake In The Hills