Online-only letters

Republican or GOP?

They're synonymous, Democrats

Democrats are suing Washington's secretary of state to force Dino Rossi to list himself as "Republican" rather than "GOP." Judging by Elway polls quoted by Democrat party leaders, a fair number of Democratic voters are too stupid to know that the Republicans have called themselves the GOP for more than 150 years, which raises the question of whether they should even be allowed to vote.

Do we really want people that ignorant deciding who will lead our state? If they're not smart enough to know that GOP = Republican, how can they possibly comprehend and decide on the issues on the ballot?

Democratic Party zealots seeking to use the term "Republican" — the worst slur their fevered little minds can come up with — to crank up the left-wing hate machine could have filed this suit months ago, when the candidates first filed.

It's clear they're using the timing of the suit to disrupt ballot printing and distribution to favor "Queen Gregoire" in the November election.

Whichever way you look at it, the Democrats come off looking foolish, petty and underhanded. ...

— Winston Rockwell, Kirkland

Boeing strike

Helps employees win the lottery

This Saturday I will win the state lottery (or a facsimile thereof.)

I, being a reluctant Boeing striker, will have lost $3,390 in gross wages, not counting any overtime I may have worked. But this Saturday, I will collect my first strike check for a staggering, whopping, astronomically mind-blowing amount of $150. I feel so wealthy now — no need to tap into my 401(k) or take out a loan. That $150 will carry me for at least a few days. Good thing my monthly expenses are only 15 to 17 times that amount.

I have no idea what I will do with all that extra income.

— Roger D. Pickens, Federal Way

I-1000

Physicians won't go for it

Carol Ostrom's story on Initiative 1000, ["Doctors divided on assisted suicide," Times, news, Sept. 22], was either poorly researched or outright propaganda.

One would not ordinarily rely on a poll of an insignificant number of members of a group (the Washington State Medical Association in this case), conducted by a minority opinion with an agenda to advance the idea that "physicians are deeply divided".

I am a physician and a WSMA member. We have the WSMA so physicians can voice their opinions and be heard freely by their colleagues. WSMA members voted last fall as to how we felt regarding I-1000 and we overwhelmingly rejected the ideas and philosophy behind the initiative. .

Not one of the dozens of physicians I know personally has suggested they support I-1000 or assisted suicide in any form. We believe people in pain or who are depressed and fearing abandonment, should be given treatment, love and attention — not death.

Dignity comes from recognition of every person's humanity; it is not dependent on their fragility or vulnerability.

— James McMillan, M.D., Bellevue

Obama endorsement

The right choice

After reading spiteful attacks on Sen. Barack Obama, those of us who support him must speak out ["Barack Obama for president," editorial, Sept. 21].

I am a fiscal conservative who worries greatly about tax increases and additional government programs that sound noble but prove wasteful.

Sen. John McCain has shifted his position on many issues, including the need for increased governmental oversight of financial institutions. I have become convinced that McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin run the "circle talk express," to quote Jon Stewart, and will say whatever is convenient when answering questions.

For McCain to say he will bring change, while hiring Karl Rove and former lobbyists and suggesting we can remain in Iraq indefinitely while cutting taxes, suggests a total lack of political fortitude and economic understanding.

We need a leader who will raise the integrity and moral compass of this country while restoring confidence. And for those who do not believe that oratory makes a difference, compare former presidents FDR, JFK and Regan to George W. Bush. Words can inspire us all to a better place.

We need a change of direction and we need it now — not in four years.

— James B. Parsons, Bellevue

Better for the economy

Politicians such as Sen. John McCain, who aggressively promoted deregulation and free-market enterprise, are now spinning on their heels in a fast retreat as the full scale of the debacle on Wall Street comes into view.

It is hard to take seriously the candidacy of someone who shifts his rhetoric almost daily in a bid to make himself appear that he has the back of the average American.

To add insult to injury, Congress is being asked to "trust" Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson as he bails out Wall Street. This means that legislators, on behalf of American taxpayers, are expected to abdicate regulatory oversight of the bailout plan and give another executive enormous power.

As I see it, the same administration that sold us an illegal war costing millions of dollars is using a similar campaign.

Once again, they are rewarding the business failures of their backers in the process.

Where is the punitive measure in the bill for those companies whose greed brought on the worst crisis since the Great Depression? Why reward greed with bailouts? Why is socialism for the wealthy CEO acceptable whereas a government-financed universal-health-care system is somehow suspect or anti-American?

While all evidence pointed to a near collapse of the system last week, the strings the current Bush administration seeks to attach to the bailout plan promotes even less oversight.

We need a president like Barack Obama in office — someone whose economic policies have long favored the average American, who understands what it means to just scrape by and who has actively supported oversight and regulation in his legislative career.

By supporting a tax cut for America's middle class and holding those in the highest income levels responsible for paying their fair share of taxes, Obama's economic plan clearly provides the middle class a better future than McCain's.

No matter how he tries to change his tune, McCain cannot hide the fact that the very deregulatory policies he espouses led to the mess we are in now.

American voters should consider that as they pull the lever in November. I know I will.

— Lisa Horan, Bothell

$700B bailout

We should be smarter now

Watch out, America! This "rush to bailout" has a familiar stench to it. It's a replay of the "rush to war" by the Bush administration.

Is there a plan to run a program after the bailout or will there be similar disorder as with the occupation?

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

— Rocco Cappeto, Seattle

Put the $700 billion to better use

The government's proposed $700 billion bailout could have been used to revitalize America's ailing transportation infrastructure, rebuild an ailing education system or provide low-cost universal health care.

Instead, $700 billion will be used to bail out the almighty banking industry, whose greed and insatiable appetite for profits has led to this mess.

American people have been brainwashed with the notion that life's successes consist of a large house and two-car garage — purchased on credit.

Banks have made billions of dollars based on the "have now, pay later" mantra.

Now that the corporations are crying poverty, taxpayers are expected to come to their rescue.

If I become sick and unable to repay my debts, do you think Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson will come to my financial aid?

When will Americans realize that ownership means using old fashioned cash to buy instead of using a litany of IOUs.

— Steve Dunmore, Nanning, China

Main Street, not Wall Street

Some free market we have here.

We have been admonished by George W. Bush and Wall Street to keep regulators away from the markets and let them work their magic. Now the markets have failed and Wall Street and Bush have come whining to the public, demanding we transfer $700 billion from our pockets to theirs.

This is the same administration that said we don't have enough money to give poor children health care or fund projects that would help the poor and middle class keep their houses.

We have to catch on at some point, don't we? For those claiming to put the country first, it is clear what they mean by country is Wall Street rather than Main Street.

You don't get to privatize profits and socialize loss. You don't get to steal from those who have the least, simply to line the pockets of those with the most.

Enough of this blatant and immoral robbery.

— Doug Selwyn, Seattle

It all comes full-circle

I find it fascinating that George W. Bush began his political career with the creation of the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC), which was used to bail out the savings-and-loan crisis that he benefited from.

Now President Bush will end his political career with the reincarnation of an RTC-like entity that will again bail out the financial market corporations that he has benefited from.

William Black and James Galbraith wrote in "Bush's Role in Corporate Fraud," "He (George W. Bush) is following in his father's footsteps: First, create the problem by taking actions that encourage fraud. Second, do nothing while the frauds become epidemic. Finally, when the scandal breaks, like Claude Rains in Casablanca that he is "shocked, shocked" that gambling is going on. In Bush's case, the winnings from gambling were safely pocketed long ago."

We should not be surprised that President Bush's behavior today is the same as it was 20 years ago. He acts to save the rich and soak the poor. He wants all hands on deck to bail out the wealthy, and the middle-class homeowners to walk the plank.

The end of President Bush on the public stage has come full-circle with the beginning.

— Gerry Merritt, Eugene

Add these provisions to your plan, Paulson

I agree with the points made by Paul Krugman ["Perils of the Paulson plan," syndicated column, Sept. 23]. Krugman says that a share in ownership must come with the rescue plan. But in reflecting a conservative philosophy that the administration professes to have, I would include some key provisions that don't seem to be getting any ink.

1. Dismiss all top executives. Let's face it, these guys have done nothing but cook the books to get rich.

2. Terminate all rescued entity-bonus programs and do not restart them until it can be demonstrated that the program would reward true value.

3. To reflect the very poor performance of their corporation, the top 20 percent of the remaining compensation earners shall be rewarded with a 20 percent cut in pay.

4. The boards of the rescued corporations shall immediately replace more than one half of the board members with new individuals who are properly separated from the corporation and its value. If within a given time frame the boards cannot decide who among them will be replaced, the matter will be resolved by lottery.

I am positive that the rewards from these provisions will be positive for all of us who will be paying this rescue bill.

— Mike Green, East Wenatchee

Put their pictures on the penny

If we're going to put some new images on the penny, maybe we should include George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan — in a handbasket.

The shift to deregulation and less government oversight of the financial industry began in the Reagan administration and the Republicans have to take the lion's share of the responsibility for the mess we're in now.

I'm nearly 61 years old and don't expect to be able to retire before at least 70, because my nation's economy has been allowed to run, unchecked, into the ground.

The penny, the smallest unit of money, seems the appropriate place to commemorate this debacle.

— Jon Jensen, College Place

Put the TARP over the Constitution

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson wants Congress to quickly give him complete dictatorial authority under the proposed "Troubled Asset Relief Program" (TARP) without any oversight or review by any court of law or administrative agency ["Bailout runs into resistance," news, Sept. 23].

Perhaps the true meaning of TARP can be best captured as follows: "Quickly, throw this TARP over the corpse of the Constitution. Move along, folks, there's nothing to see here."

— Kenneth Pick, Seattle

Give the money to homeowners

I have come to realize that the top-down bailout being proposed by Paulson is backward. Instead, why don't we put the money from taxpayers into bailing the system out from the bottom-up instead?

The government could make funds available to underwrite and/or guarantee a special class of refinance mortgages. These would be issued and administered by banks as simple low-interest, long-term, fixed-rate mortgages, no gimmicks or catches. This program would be available only to homeowners who are at risk of foreclosure due to abusive, "subprime" loans, regardless of credit score or current home value, as long as the homeowner still has a chance of being able to make payments. Participants might also be granted a slight discount off the remaining balance of their original mortgage so that the lenders who issued these abusive loans won't be getting a free ride.

This would take care of bailing out the American homeowner and the real-estate market. It should also take care of bailing out the so-called "toxic" securities, because it would take care of removing the risk factor that has made them so toxic.

It might still leave these securities somewhat devalued, but no longer outright worthless.

— Benjamin Schreiber, Kirkland

Put the money in the right hands

Has anybody done the math on this?

How many bad mortgages can there be? If there were 10 million, then $700 billion would mean throwing $70,000 at each one. I'm betting it would be a lot cheaper to make up just enough of the difference to turn them into good mortgages.

Let's say that next month my mortgage jumps from $1,400 a month to $1,700 and I'm not going to be able to pay the extra. Instead of foreclosing, why not bail me out with $300?

It would be much cheaper upfront and the financial institutions would be protected.

If we have to throw money at this problem, do we want to put that money in the hands of the people who got rich creating the problem?

— Jack McCarthy, Everett

Not our fault

Your article, ["Taxpayers may spend $1 trillion in bailout," news, Sept. 20], describes how the Feds will "clear trash off banks' books" and thereby save the banks from going bankrupt.

We are assured and can accept that this is necessary for the nation and letting the banks go bankrupt would be a worse result.

But these banks and other financial institutions are run by CEOs and CFOs and other very highly paid officers who made millions while making these stupid, irresponsible and greedy decisions that led to this crisis.

We can bail out the banks and other institutions but why are we letting the same errant, misdirected individuals remain at the helm?

The homeowners who bought the mortgages were merely buying a product on the market that they believed would be OK. If someone puts a dishwasher on the market, shouldn't I expect that it will wash dishes? If someone sells me a mortgage that they say is right for me, shouldn't I believe them?

There is no bailout for these poor saps. They will likely lose their houses.

They are the trash being cleared off the books of those overpaid, overprotected CEOs.

— Leonard Goodisman, Bothell