I must respond to a letter writer criticizing Congressman Pete Stauber's voting record. As I read what appeared to be a disgruntled Democrat's delineation of votes, I could see nothing immoral or unethical in the way Stauber voted, from a lifelong Ranger's point of view.

If the letter writer wanted to complain about Stauber's arrogance and cockiness toward average citizens, refusing to write back or return phone calls, I would agree with her 1000 percent. If you are not a big shot, he has no time for you. And he won't change because he doesn't feel he needs to… until the next election.

But criticism on his vote on equal pay for women was unwarranted. It may have been an issue for the middle class two to three decades ago. I have worked for a few companies over the years. During that time, women were all treated equally paywise. Some of the mining companies allowed women to be treated with disrespect (eg. Eveleth Taconite and U.S. Steel), but in the normal world, most good enlightened companies have human resource departments where women could go to discuss their problems.

As to her assertion about Stauber's vote on what she calls "background checks" for gun purchases, Stauber's "NO" vote was because the bill was for mandatory "gun registration" and he voted correctly. The anti-gun movement has coined the term "background checks" because it polls better with the uninformed public. People buy firearms from ads in the paper, shopper, off the bulletin board at work and from private parties at gun shows not because of a background check, but because they don't want to register them with the government through mandatory Federal Form 4473 Firearms Transaction Record. And neither do I.

Jimmy Saranpaa

Orr

0
0
0
0
1

Recommended for you

Load comments