Online-only letters

Bailout

Don't save the corporations

The "prophet of profits" economist Milton Friedman would be the first to recognize that there's no real reason to bail out the hyper-leveraged (and failing) Wall Street investment banks because the product they ultimately offer, money, is available at banks all over the world.

The reality of free-market enterprise should be that when ambitions exceed good business sense, the prudently run institutions will prosper and the overreaching gamblers will occasionally fail. There are always bright minds waiting for their opportunity and there should be no need for "tea and sympathy" for those who have lost control of their companies.

Could a principal reason behind the proposed bailout [$700B rescue: Will it work?" News, Sept. 21] be that these failing investment firms have been the ones overseeing this administration's wild ride into debt by marketing foreign sources of capital in Japan, China and elsewhere? Are these institutions needed to continue to peddle the less and less appealing paper that the Bush administration desires to maintain its ambitious worldwide agenda? Would new faces and different banks be less sanguine about the prospects of the American economy?

I certainly hope there's plenty of discussion before this proposed bailout becomes a reality and a burden to us, our children, grandchildren and beyond.

— John H. Browne Jr., Vashon

Citizens should take responsibility

Reading ["$700B financial rescue: Will it work?," News, Sept. 21] prompted me to give a bit of advice to Americans: Try not to spend more money than you make and maybe in the future we won't need another multibillion-dollar bailout.

Not everyone needs a $300 cellphone or designer carry-on luggage. Thanks for refinancing your house six times to buy that boat. I hope you enjoy it since I'll be paying for it.

— Robert Klotz, Maple Valley

It's not our fault

So President Bush wants to save Wall Street with our tax dollars at the sum of something like $5,000 per U.S. household. There is no guarantee this won't happen again in the future and there will be nothing in return for us broke taxpayers.

I have a better idea: Why not take our money and make every household a vested stockholder in the companies we're bailing out? This seems like a win-win situation. For once I'd like to see some return on my taxes and I don't believe I'm alone.

After all, we didn't ask for this and we certainly didn't do anything to cause it.

— Ray Albrecht, Issaquah

Class-action lawsuit, anyone?

While the executive officers of the failed institutions scurry away with millions of dollars in salary and severance, leaving the American taxpayers holding the bag, I would like to offer a humble suggestion: Since the government has no legal grounds to prosecute these companies, perhaps a legal firm or two might be interested in launching a class-action lawsuit to recover those millions as well as several million more in compensatory damages suffered by the shareholders, the employees losing their livelihoods and on behalf of the American public in general.

I am aware that these legal firms would reap a small fortune as a result, however, the satisfaction of severely penalizing said execs and perhaps the complicit board members, would be of service to us all.

— Richard Stamm, Fall City

Obama endorsement

It's about time

I've been waiting eight years for a mea culpa (Latin phrase meaning "my fault") from you for your utterly wrongheaded endorsement of George W. Bush in 2000. Heaven knows you've had plenty of opportunities while Bush made one blunder after another — lying his way into a war we didn't need, destabilizing the Middle East, gutting the constitution, alienating the international community, devastating our environment, enriching his buddies while picking the pockets of ordinary Americans, Hurricane Katrina, the current financial crisis and so many more.

In all these years, nary a peep from you.

Though no one could have predicted the breathtaking extent to which he would fail, it was clear that Bush had nothing to qualify him for the job. "In the end," you said, "important details ... gave way to a persistent call for change" ["George W. Bush for president," Times, Editorial, Oct. 22, 2000]. Important details, indeed. You also said you couldn't support Al Gore due to his "hunger to win at any cost." Maybe Gore realized how high the stakes were.

You never did stand up and admit your mistake, but your endorsement of Barack Obama ["Obama for president," Editorial, Sept. 21] goes a long way toward righting your colossal wrong.

— Rhonna Kallander, Sammamish

Not so smart

The Times has placed itself squarely in the liberal camp in your endorsement of Sen. Obama for president. This is a man who's primary qualification is the ability to read from a teleprompter.

His economic policies are straight from 1960s socialists, his energy policy is fantasy and as for protecting this country, there will tens of thousands who will leave the military rather than follow a man who has nothing but disdain and lack of respect for them.

This endorsement is not just unwise; it is ignorant and irresponsible. Should he be elected I will begin moving my money from the U.S. to foreign markets.

— Tom Goold, Vancouver

Initiative 1000

Many physicians disapprove

With all due respect to Dr. Jack Leversee, his opinion ["How we die," Health, Sept. 21] is not representative of most physicians in Washington, Oregon or any other state in the U. S.

Medical associations in 49 states (including Washington) and the American Medical Association have all declared their opposition to physician-assisted suicide. The Oregon Medical Association, which initially was neutral on physician-assisted suicide, subsequently supported a repeal of Oregon's law.

Authorizing a physician to become a participant in ending a life is antithetical to the physician's mission. I-1000 would undermine the trust relationship between a doctor and his patient, particularly when that patient is elderly, disabled or otherwise vulnerable to outside pressure.

I-1000 lacks even the rudimentary safeguard of requiring that the death be witnessed. It affirmatively requires the death certificate to falsely list the cause of death as the underlying illness rather than a lethal overdose.

— Theresa Schremp, Seattle

Natural gas

We need it now

The next generation of energy is not ready; emission-free cars are a decade or more away. U.S. automotive companies need to convert 75 percent of their fleets to natural gas and they need to do it now.

Aftermarket conversion kits need to be made available so consumers can use natural gas to fuel the vehicles they already own. Household natural-gas appliances need to be mass-produced. Gas stations need natural-gas pumps.

Here is the deal: The country is 10 trillion dollars in debt. We need to get our house in order, which means we need to stop sending trillions of dollars overseas.

Natural gas belongs to Americans. We need to pull it out of the Earth and pay off our debt one gas tank at a time.

Earth to environmentalists: Natural gas burns clean. Yes, it's not perfect.

Earth to politicians: Reduce and stop spending! You have been warned.

— Dean Baldridge, Stanwood