Editor:
In response to Kim Lawrence’s letter, one has to ask what she is thinking with two of her ideas.
Her first idea is to cut the benefits a city employee receives. A lot of people that work regular jobs receive benefits – i.e., health insurance. Does this mean that just because someone works for the city they shouldn’t receive these benefits?
Her second idea is the one that irritates me the most. She wants to take away the cost-of-living raises these employees receive. What happens when you cut the cost-of-living raises and the cost of living in Sweet Home goes up? In effect, that means each and every person that works for the city takes a pay cut. Now, after a few years of the cost of living raising, and these employees’ pay not going up to match this, what happens? The employees of the city of Sweet Home are now living below the poverty level. They may end up on welfare and other such programs, and you are paying for their wages AND welfare for these individuals.
Kim, I think you need to think things through a bit more.
Nicholas L. Grabeel
Sergeant, U.S. Army
Formerly of Sweet Home