Online-only letters

Democrats idea of change

Not quite right

Both political parties are making "change" the cornerstone of their current campaigns. If polls are right, come January, Democrats will have a larger majority in the House and a filibuster-proof Senate. Thus, President Barack Obama will be working together with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to do whatever they want to set our country's future path. What changes can we look forward to with the Obama/Reid/Pelosi (ORP) triumvirate in charge? The ORP will demand a hasty withdrawal from Iraq. When Iraq descends into chaos, they will argue they were right in their earlier claim that the war was un-winnable. Some of the troops will be diverted to Afghanistan to fight "the real war on terrorism". They won't bother to tell us what the goals of this war are other than to get Osama bin Laden. Once significant numbers of Americans start coming home wounded or in body bags, they will surely decide that Afghanistan is really not that important, declare victory and come home.

To satisfy their base, they will send out $500 checks to 95 percent of the populace and dole out big tax increases to the other 5 percent. Never mind that the top 10 percent already pay more than 70 percent of income taxes with essentially no help from the bottom 60 percent.

One is reminded of the adage about the gain from teaching someone to fish versus giving them a fish. The ORP plan goes beyond that bit of wisdom by taxing away much of the fisherman's catch — making it far more difficult if not impossible for him to buy a new boat that would benefit everyone.

One tax that Democrats will definitely not reduce is the current 35 percent tax rate on corporate profits. They don't seem to realize that the job losses they lament are partially due to companies choosing to go to other countries, such as Canada with a 19.5 percent tax rate.

To satisfy their big-labor-union supporters, they will demand other countries renegotiate existing trade agreements and block future trade pacts to force their definition of fair-labor practices on our trading partners. One additional juicy tidbit that unions will undoubtedly receive is the elimination of the secret ballot for those choosing whether they wish to be represented by a union

The ORP triumvirate will reward the major media outlets (NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN) for their unstinting support by establishing a fairness doctrine for radio talk shows. Government bureaucrats will monitor talk radio to ensure all programming meets their standards for balance — effectively killing the one media outlet not controlled by their friends.

One wonders if these are the changes people want to address their current right-track/wrong-track concerns.

— Bill Hirt, Bellevue

Corporate Bailouts

Not the answer

"You can't squeeze blood from a turnip." We've all heard the saying and now we must acknowledge it's truth ["Fed steps in to save AIG," Times, business, Sept. 17]. The banking and real-estate cats were getting really fat a few short years ago — qualifying those in the middle-income bracket to purchase hugely inflated real estate. We were very excited and happily moved into our cool pads. We kept up with our enormous mortgage payments before the oil cats decided to fatten themselves — before we had a wrench or two thrown into the family budget. We started living off instant-credit offers we received in the mail, signed on for low interest rates and when we missed or were late with one payment they hiked up the rate to heaven.

We couldn't pay and now you can't pay. How does it feel?

Now you fat cats want my taxes to "bail you out?" No way!!!

Let's take a step back.

I have an idea before you foreclose, file bankruptcy or ask the feds to bail you out: How about resetting the qualifying standard and you, the bankers, set everything back where it should be? We reapply for our loan and, if we qualify, you refinance us. Sure you'll take a loss but you won't be out everything — none of us will.

The finger points at us. We should say "No. We won't pay more for a house than it's worth. We won't pay more for a tank of gas than what we can afford." It's all gotten out of hand and we know it. In order to survive it we must work together.

I'm sorry John McCain and Sarah Palin that you don't go for regulating, but as my conservative uncle in Arizona professes to me, "our government is here to protect us" — and since greed has no conscience; we've been horribly let down by our protectors.

— Debbie McClure, Bellevue

U.S. oil drilling

It won't benefit anyone

Columnist Bruce Ramsey fails to understand the key reason why oil drilling in the U.S. is a bad idea ["Drilling for oil buys time to develop fuels of the future," editorial column, Sept. 17]: It will have a trivial impact on the price of gasoline. Oil is a global commodity. The United States only has about 2 percent of the world's oil reserves and much of that is in environmentally sensitive areas. If we bring that oil to market and increase the world's supply, the price may come down, but only by a small amount.

Because that oil will go to the highest bidder, it is just as likely to be sold to refiners in China or India as to American refineries. The net result will be fatter wallets for oil companies, an increased risk of oil spills along the American coastline and little benefit to American consumers. That is why conservation and alternative energy sources need to be the focus of our energy policy — not drilling.

— Joe Sullivan, Kirkland

Drill to create jobs

The last sentence of today's editorial ["Ban drilling for votes", Sept. 17] is confusing: "Try this instead: Renew the ban on offshore drilling and have true, adult conversations about a national energy policy."

How can one have an "adult conversation debate" about a national energy policy when one first excludes a one necessary piece of an any real energy policy for no good reason that anyone has been able to support?

In The Times's long and detailed editorial I found one very important detail completely missing: a good reason to ban offshore exploration and drilling.

Could it be because of environmental concerns? Then name a few disasters caused by offshore drilling in the past two decades.

Could it be because it isn't a quick fix? I guess the billions of American dollars that would go to good wages here in America, instead of overseas, over the decades of production aren't important to The Times editors.

Could it be because, like Al Gore and his minions in our Democratic Congress, The Times supports outrageous energy prices to force us into expensive and "not ready for prime time" clean-energy solutions? I think the readers deserve an explanation.

Corporations in the U.S. and all over the world are working diligently on clean-energy innovation. That will not stop, or even be delayed, if the U.S. works to make itself energy independent. The days of cheap liquid fuels are over. That much is very clear.

However, no credible expert is predicting that our need for liquid fuels will diminish over the next few decades. We need oil and we will continue to need oil for many decades. Isn't it important to our economy that as much of it as possible is our oil? That the good oil exploration and production wages are paid to our workers?

— Robert Rasmussen, Seattle

Republican ideals

Country-first not self-interest

I always disagree with opinions expressed by David Sirota, but this one is way over the top ["Partisanship, passion and propaganda," syndicated columnist, Sept. 15].

This piece is nothing but a litany of cheap shots, misrepresentations and lies.

I won't attempt to comment on them all, but let's start with a Republican convention of "white faces." Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell are two obvious leaders who have been part of the Republican administration.

Sirota derides "Drill, baby, drill" when a vast majority of Americans agree we must increase our domestic oil production as we develop other energy sources.

He says we Republicans call for "country first" and defines it as "lock-step fealty to the Republican Party." No Republican said or has said this. They have said we believe the country should come ahead of self-interest, partisan maneuvering and bickering for political advantage alone.

It has nothing to do with isolationism. How can we expect to learn anything from Sirota when he tries to label us as isolationists and criticizes us for starting wars for no reason? Which is it? He also seems to ignore, as too many do, that we were attacked and are at war with Islamic terrorists. It is hard to conduct war without spending some funds.

Then he tells us that free-trade agreements, such as NAFTA, "eliminate American jobs." Nothing could be further from the truth. Free trade increases our opportunity to export goods, thereby creating or retaining jobs.

We Republicans are fully aware that nonwhites will soon be the majority in this country. We have welcomed them and will continue to welcome them — as long as they come here legally.

I resent his egregious attempt to drag out past statements made by Republicans and tell us they represent the party.

I have served my country and have been a Republican for longer than Sirota has lived, so I have a bit of experience. I greatly resent his characterization of the country and of Republicans.

— Henry R. Kroeger, Redmond

Troopergate investigation

McCain/Palin bring

dark change to Alaska

With the excessive legal maneuvering from the team of lawyers the Republicans sent up north, plus the stonewalling, claims of executive privilege and the redacted or missing e-mails, it looks like the troopergate investigation will be shut down.

If Dick Cheney is any model to follow; clearly Sarah Palin has that part down pat. Don't know whether McCain/Palin will bring change to D.C. but it sure looks like they brought change to Alaska. The darkness up there seems to have come early this year.

— Bert Schulz, Redmond