Mensch would be sole? winner in golf deal

I have read the recent proposal from the Mensch Group to swap the Westwood Country Club with Amherst in exchange for the Audubon Golf Course.

They painted their proposal with all kinds of references to "mixed use" development; whatever that is supposed to look like, it sure smells of future tax breaks to me. Multiple references to creating "synergy." Again, what is that supposed to mean? Then they also reference UB 2020 in their proposal. They sound like they are trying to hook their wagon on to this major initiative to lend some credibility to their project.

Mensch bought a near dead country club with some expectation to turn it around and obviously make money. Looks like they now see this turn around of Westwood as a financial black hole, so what are they trying to do? Unload it on the Town of Amherst. It looks like, as they said in the proposal, win-win! Amherst gets a comatose country club, and who knows what condition the clubhouse is in?

Mensch wants to win and then they want to take the prime property of the Amherst golf course from the town to develop it. It looks win-win for sure with Mensch on both ends of the win-win. Mensch is not a charity.

Amherst should look at the snake oil Niagara Falls was sold when the state gave away prime property to the Seneca Casino with all the promise that it would be the turnaround Niagara Falls needed. Ten years later Niagara Falls is still run-down and can't even get its share of the gambling proceeds. Officials were probably told 10 years ago it was win-win, too.

Mensch wants to make their bad investment Amherst's bad investment by taking away its prime golf course property, then make their losing investment into a win-win. But Mensch is on both sides of the win.

Larry Schiro



Article on Collins' company? provide interesting insights

The Aug. 3 News article, "Democrats use China card to rebut Collins on business," outlines the Democrats' view that Collins, a self-made millionaire, is only creating jobs in China. Collins claims innocence to this charge and rebuts that his opponent, Kathleen C. Hochul, doesn't know what it takes to create jobs.

In his defense, the article states that his company, Ingenious Products Inc., "has two employees, both of whom have other jobs." That leads me to believe that he has two part-time employees. Could it be possible that he has two part-time employees rather than one full-time employee because he doesn't want to pay health care and other benefits to his workers? I pray that his workers have health insurance from another source. Thank you, Mr. Collins, for these great American jobs. I am glad that your bottom line is not impacted by your workers' quality of life issues.

Paul Murphy

East Aurora


Health panel's powers? are absurdly far-reaching

Progressives are correct when they say that Obamacare has nothing in it called a "death panel;" it's called the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). Consisting of 15 presidentially appointed members (no medical experience required), its goal is to decide how to contain Medicare costs, but its potential for abuse is staggering. For example:

All IPAB cost-cutting "proposals" become law automatically unless the House, the Senate and the president can unanimously agree on a substitute plan with equivalent savings.

IPAB has the authority to raise taxes and make denial of care decisions for all Americans.

IPAB is authorized to work in secret and there's no prohibition against board members accepting (unlimited) donations of cash, meals, services, cars, vacations or even homes from lobbyists. (That shouldn't be a problem.)

Obamacare even forbids Congress from repealing IPAB except during a 7-month window in 2017 (requiring a three-fifths majority in both chambers) and if not done then, Congress is prohibited from ever altering an IPAB proposal after the year 2020. And adding insult to injury, the lowly American citizen has no power to challenge an IPAB edict in court.

While libertarians can continue to warn of the dangers of overweening government intrusion, doubters should just do their research – this information is readily available.

John Swanson

East Amherst


Romney told the truth ?during his trip abroad

I've read several articles regarding Mitt Romney's trip abroad being filled with gaffes. I found several articles showing just the opposite to be true.

No. 1, Mitt's trip to London. He said he had reservations about the British readiness. One or two days later news reports stated that some venues were only half full, one stadium's keys were lost, causing delays, and the tickets were incorrect. Score one for Mitt, he told the truth.

Next on to Israeli, and gaffe No. 2. Mitt states that there are cultural differences between the Jews and Arabs. Wow! I thought they did not have any because They have gotten along so well for hundreds of years. Mitt tells the truth again.

On to Poland where journalists show disrespect for the Polish people and Mitt, as he honors fallen Polish heroes. Mitt's aide tells the press to show some respect and to back off and cover the real story instead of making one. I found it uplifting and rare to see a politician telling the truth rather than trying to be politically correct. Whatever happened to journalists reporting the whole story and the truth? Mitt may be the breath of fresh air our country really needs.

John Dolhon



Peel back the layers of Congress ?to find the real power brokers

Jerry Zremski's front-page story, "Polarized Congress considered worst ever," is no joke from late-night comedians. Congress is a symbol of the coarsening of public dialogue and leadership. Things don't get better from coarsening, they get more brutal. Behind it is a lapse of leadership of all kinds into the lower common denominator of socioeconomic life, money, and the attitudes and behavior of people of position toward it.

Nothing kicked this coarsening reality into hyper mode more than the Supreme Court decision of Citizens United, which has enabled billionaires to throw money into certain kinds of political coffers that overwhelm the media available to voters.

Refinement is a hallmark of purification of the coarse and non-utilitarian elements. It seems to be a lacking quality in the growing segment that purports to lead our nation. Just listen to the Jack Abramoffs of the world describe lobbying of politicians. It's a coarse and dirty business, now aided and abetted by the Citizens United Supreme Court decision.

Money, such as it is as a fiat currency, is being battered and manipulated in financial scandals that run from money laundering to dishonest interest rate settings. It seems it isn't Congress running public issues. It is gross money.

David R. Conners