There was no suffering under Obama
Conservatives love to say, “We suffered eight years under Barack Obama.”
Really? Let’s take a look.
When Obama took office, the Dow closed at 7,949 points. Eight years later, the Dow had tripled.
General Motors and Chrysler faced bankruptcy. Millions of jobs were at stake. Obama pushed through a controversial, $80 billion bailout to save the car industry. The industry survived, and the entire amount was paid back, with interest.
Obama ordered the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden.
He reduced the number of troops from 180,000 in Iraq and Afghanistan to just 15,000.
He launched the Opening Doors program that led to a large decline in the number of homeless veterans.
He set a record of 73 straight months of private-sector job growth.
Greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 12%, production of renewable energy more than doubled, and our dependence on foreign oil was cut in half.
He signed The Lilly Ledbetter Act, making it easier for women to sue employers for equal pay.
He reduced the federal deficit from 9.8% of GDP in 2009 to 3.2% in 2016.
Despite its faults, some seem to have forgotten that before the Affordable Care Act you could be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, and kids could not stay on their parents’ policies until age 26.
Credit card companies can no longer charge hidden fees or secretly raise interest rates.
He was the first president since Eisenhower to serve two terms without personal or political scandal.
He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
President Obama was not perfect. Who is? But to say we suffered? By any reasonable measure such a claim is ridiculous.
And all this even though the GOP promised to block anything President Obama tried to do.
Museum’s actions were irresponsible
I was stunned, shocked, dismayed and disgusted to read the article in the Aug. 16 Skagit Valley Herald that featured the KKK.
The callousness of the Sedro-Woolley Museum in using its newsletter to showcase a group that has long promoted racism (and still does), and has been responsible for creating fear, terror, violence and murder comes close to normalizing those actions.
Whether or not this was the intent of the museum, a letter of regret and public apology is needed. Without any reference that this was/is a shameful part of our history and that all our vigilance is necessary to prevent its continuance, is beyond irresponsible.
The public has been invited to attend the museum’s next board meeting at 6:30 p.m. Thursday, Sept. 5, at the museum, 727 Murdock St.
I would encourage all to attend to voice their objection, and ask that the museum consider moving that meeting to a larger venue to allow for more community input.
Dorothy de Fremery