May 17, 2008

Letters

Assembly mailers

Dear Editor: Within the last two weeks, it seems that more than $200,000 of special interest money has poured into San Mateo County on behalf of Assembly candidate Gina Papan.

By my count, 11 pieces of mail touting Papan's candidacy have inundated our mailboxes. A quick review of the fine print reveals the interesting details voters deserve to know about.

These mail campaigns appear to be financed by Sacramento-based special interest organizations closely associated with the big insurance companies and medical trade associations. It is unfortunate that these special interest campaigns are the newest plague on the political process.

But what is particularly galling and brazen to me about these Papan mailings is the claim that "Papan will stand up to the insurance companies," which is an utter joke. I'm not sure how stupid they think we are. If Big Insurance is spending more than $200,000 to help elect Papan, does anyone really think she'll "stand up to them"? I certainly don't.

More likely, Papan will stand "hand in hand" with the insurance companies just like her father did in the Assembly in years past.

I am supporting Supervisor Jerry Hill for Assembly because he has tirelessly served San Mateo County as a local elected official for more than 17 years. He's made great progress here on health care, the environment, and local transportation. Having worked with Jerry Hill, I am certain that he will be working for "us" in Sacramento - not for Big Insurance.

Dave Warden,

former Belmont mayor

and council member



Windfall profits tax

Dear Editor: I see that David Kreutzer's column on Sunday ["Don't fall for windfall profits tax"] provoked quite the response from Peter Deutsch [Letters, Wednesday]. Some of the points he made need answering, particularly his second, in which he argues windfall taxes have no investment effects.

Pretend you're an oil company. Which of these would you pick for a 20-year investment:

1. Putting your money in a savings account to definitely get three times your initial money back (two times the expected return on investment [RoI]).

2. Developing an oil field that your engineers and economists give a 50-50 chance of either breaking even or giving you six times your money back total (2.5 times expected RoI).

3. Developing the same oil field, which gives a 50-50 chance of either breaking even or giving you four times your investment money back after a windfall tax on your big payoff (1.5 times expected RoI).

4. Developing the oil field, but thinking that the chance of the government of the future imposing such a windfall tax on you was more than even (two times expected RoI).

Would you still develop the oil field in the windfall tax case? Would you still develop the oil field in the case when you merely thought that a windfall tax was likely? Granted my exact values are invented but the inescapable point is that such taxes (or even the threat of them) make investments that are subject to them less attractive.

Geoff Tolley,

Mountain View



Developer defended

Dear Editor: I would like to add to Alison Green's letter [Tuesday, "Social injustice"] the following. I have followed the case of Mr. Fred Thayer very closely as he was building his homes on Ralston Road. There is no nicer person than Mr. Thayer and I know for a fact that he did all he could to placate his neighbors and the city officials (at great expense to his project) and, thus, successfully avoided any personal conflict with the city. The only mistake Mr. Thayer made was to not take his case in front of a judge. In many cases, cities simply tie themselves in legal knots that only a court of justice can sever.

Virgil Stevens,

San Carlos

Protest appointment

Dear Editor: The American people must be assured that their votes will be counted impartially. The previous head of the Election Assistance Commission quit in disgust at the attempts to use the EAC for partisan purposes. We cannot afford to further undermine trust in our voting systems by appointing a crook to run this important office. The new appointee is Alice Miller, who was in 2003 investigated by the Office of the Inspector General, which concluded that she had defrauded the government. The administration has protected her, as they've protected other criminals, and promoted her, as they've promoted other incompetents. As Americans who care about honest elections, we should all, regardless of party, protest this appointment.

R.M. "Auros" Harman,

Palo Alto



Change needed

Dear Editor: What a contrast between how the Chinese government organized a massive response of its military and medical resources to help the victims of the recent and devastating earthquake and how inadequately and ineffectively the Bush administration responded to Hurricane Katrina. It should give us pause as we head into the national election in November. We can't afford more Republicans in the White House or in Congress. We can change our situation.

Edith Groner,

Palo Alto



Letter offensive

Dear Editor: As a Jew and a naturalized American citizen, I have to state how offended I was by Richard Sutherland's letter of April 15. To make a statement of protest is one thing, but to compare the plight of Europe, and especially the Jews, at the hands of the Nazis to America's inept attempt to free Iraqis is nothing less than despicable.

Frankly, I don't care if Sutherland went to Harvard like Sen. Barack Obama, as he points out. But if both men can't see that Jeremiah Wright has been spouting racist and anti-Semitic rhetoric for over 20 years, then what indeed are they teaching at Harvard?

Howard Roth,

South San Francisco