Union Democrat staff

Taking issue with Bigelow, Berryhill

To the Editor:

Let's get something straight: it's Congressional Conservatives who are cutting programs though the sequester rather than negotiating targeted cuts in exchange for eliminating equivalent tax breaks for the rich. "Tax breaks:" how the wealthy "mooch." Cutting "rural school dollars" isn't an administration cut; it's required by sequester across-the-board.

Bigelow and Berryhill (4/5/13) complain about rural poverty and unemployment like they actually care. These corporate lackeys complain about wildlife protection's negative impact on the timber industry; but they don't demand the timber industry mill American logs in America rather than in China. They support Sierra Pacific's profit margins not mill workers jobs.

They could confront Walmart's anti-union tactics and low wages that are becoming the Foothill standard. Instead B&B support cutting taxes that fund the school and rural poor programs. They're actually complaining about what they're advocating.

Rural areas benefit more from tax dollars; thus cutting taxes hurts us most. Federal income tax redistributes wealth: the more you benefit from the economy the more taxes you pay. Cutting Federal Income Taxes does the reverse: it redistributes wealth to the wealthy while starving public programs. The wealthiest 10 percent get 80 percent of the tax cuts-and we lose far more than we get.

B&B want us to believe we can cut taxes and provide programs. Try telling Safeway you're not paying but you want the food. You want tax cuts - then pay fire protection fees, and accept school budgets cuts. If Bigelow and Berryhill cared about these programs they'd support paying for them.

We've bailed out Congress' major contributors; now we should spend on the other 98 percent of Americans to rebuild America's infrastructure. Give Americans a decent job and we'll start spending. And Corporate America will have demand for their products so they can expand hiring.

Robert Carabas


In response to Victor Davis Hanson

To the Editor:

The syndicated writer Victor Hanson's article of April 5 is again his views from the right, but also plainly incorrect. I expect his opinions to follow the Bush apologists' line that the economic state our country finds itself in can no longer fault H.W.'s administration and now the huge deficits are squarely upon Obama. He follows the belief that somehow, eight years of unfunded war efforts on two fronts, a drug program unpaid for, and huge tax cuts at the same time would not have lasting effects on society. Add to those, the runaway Wall Street excesses and greed leading to a call to bail out large banks and investment houses responsible for disabling and collapsing the housing market nationwide. That in turn led to massive job losses, foreclosures, and societal upheaval not seen since the Great Depression.

Many noted economists recognize that when the private sector is either unwilling or unable to invest in new production, expansion and job growth, it has historically been a federal government role to inject money into the economy as an investment to create and improve employment and social stability. It is widely accepted in academia that the money invested in stimulus dollars did put the brakes on a more disastrous economy and job losses. What was needed was more, not less government investment. The projects awaiting funding would put tens of thousands back to work, if the political will to see the advantages were understood. While Corporations are again reaping huge profits, the average American is working harder, for less.

Hanson's view on global warming not heating the planet over the last 15 years is wrong. Credible scientific study refutes that. Mankind's cause and effect are no longer scientifically questioned by the large body of scientists worldwide.

Wayne Kirkbride

Twain Harte