Boston, Angry Obama and Czar Funding Column

Dear Mark: The Boston Marathon bombing was a horrible tragedy that touched all of us. What are your thoughts? — Sad American

Dear Sad: It's too early to get political until we learn more details, and besides I don't believe any presidential action could have prevented this from happening anyway. The United States of America is a free and open society, which is the beauty of our system. Unfortunately, our freedoms can be taken advantage of by evil people who are intent on heinous acts.

I'll make one political statement, however: Mr. President, if crazy people use pressure cookers and nails to maim and kill innocent people at family type events, how can your side complain about pouring water up some terrorist's nose? The "feeling" of drowning is far more humane than nails ripping through flesh.

Dear Mark: I believe President Obama is right to be angry at the Senate for not passing expanded background checks for gun purchases at gun shows and other firearm transactions. Newtown tragedies have to stop, and this seems like a good place to start. Why can't the whacko NRA and conservatives tell the truth and get behind common sense legislation like this? — C'mon Man

Dear C'mon: Since when has anything "common sense" come out of Washington? It was laughable as well as insulting to hear President Obama pompously lecture the NRA on telling the truth after the Senate amendment failed.

"The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill," President Obama said at the White House after the vote. "It came down to politics. ... They claimed that it would create some sort of big-brother gun registry, even though it did the opposite. ... This pattern of spreading untruths ... served a purpose."

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? (Hey, AP, can I say that?) Because we now know that it was President Obama who actually lied about Obamacare to assure passage.

Quite frankly, the Senate defeat was not due to pressure from the NRA as much as a total distrust of any legislation coming out of Congress. And why not? President Obama's stimulus package was full of pork projects, crony "investments" and political paybacks. Dodd-Frank is so complicated that it's actually hurting the people it was intended to help. Don't even get me started on the 2,700-page Obamacare law that has now exploded into 20,000 pages of new regulations that no one understands.

If President Obama is sincere about averting future "Newtowns," maybe he should take this opportunity to look at the other factors contributing to these mass shootings and present appropriate legislation. Increasing the funding of our woefully underfunded mental health system seems like an easy place to start.

Dear Mark: When the president appoints a "czar," with necessary office space and furniture, communications equipment, staff and salaries, and all concomitant expenses, where does the funding come from? — Curious in Carolina.

Dear Curious: The funding is supposed to be approved by Congress. Unfortunately, these days that is synonymous with "let's ask China." Legally, if Congress doesn't approve the money for czars, the czars and their staffs will have to work for free or seek other revenue sources. The president can also hide behind the "separation of powers" and claim that czars are an integral part of his advisors that help him function as president. Either way, taxpayers are footing the bill, while the shadiness of "czars" continues.

Dear Mark is a public platform for your enrichment and entertainment. E-mail your questions to marklevy92@aol.com. To find out more about Mark Levy, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM