Print This Article!


CEOs super rich as Joes struggle

CEOs don’t create, sell or service a product; they just manipulate assets — but they cream the profits, leaving the residue to trickle down to shareholders and employees. Sometimes their actions increase a company’s value; often they don’t. Regardless, they’re rewarded handsomely.

One recently purchased stock plummeted from $23 to $3.50 per share because of risky investments that lost the company $1.4 billion. The CEO jumped ship with a $16.5 million severance package, including a 24 percent raise! Other hogs at the corporate trough now say that much CEO pay is unwarranted, particularly when unmatched by performance. Median CEO compensation last year rose to $8.8 million, as stock prices generally declined.

This excessive wealth goes into mansions, toys (such as Oracle CEO Ellison’s 450-foot ship), political coffers — and hedge funds, the preferred investment strategy of the super-rich. These secretive, unregulated funds bet heavily against the market and the dollar. They profit from the losses of others, celebrating as others mourn.

Sometimes, they bet wrong as when Long-Term Capital faced bankruptcy. However, our Treasury Secretary rescued them by arranging loans, as he also did for Bear Stearns.

But when they guess right, the rewards are jaw-dropping. In 2007 five top hedge fund managers took home an eye-popping average of $2.5 billion! Because of a tax code anomaly, they’ll pay just 15 percent tax on their income.

The Wall Street Journal editors might accuse me of engaging in “class warfare” and “the politics of envy.” I’d call it “righteous indignation” and “politics of fairness” as I see people losing their homes and choosing between food or medicine. Since 2000, the wealthiest have grown richer; the middle class stagnated and the bottom third lost ground. Raising high-end taxes is not “soaking the rich”; it’s just applying Willy Sutton’s rationale for robbing banks: “That’s where the money is.”

Larry Edwards
Burlington


How much is innocent life worth?

On Friday, April 18, after serving 26 years of a life sentence for a murder he did not commit, 54-year-old Alton Logan was released from prison. His innocence was finally revealed after a confidential 1982 affidavit outlining the confession of the true killer was brought to the court’s attention.

I would say this to Ward Ellsworth in regard to his position on the death penalty (see letter “Spending too much on criminals”); try telling Alton Logan that “we need to actually and quickly execute murderers,” and “think of the money that would save.” Mr. Ellsworth repeats his money-saving mantra further stating, “we need to get on with it and drastically shorten the time and number of appeals! Think of the millions this would save.” It seems Mr. Ellsworth values money more than the lives of innocents.

From previous letters, it’s obvious Mr. Ellsworth enjoys researching his pet issues thoroughly though subjectively. So Mr. Ellsworth, can you come up with an approximation of how much it costs to imprison all convicted murders beyond what you presume is a reasonable “stay before execution,” as well as the amount attributed to “trivial appeals,” then divide that amount by an estimate number of how many of those imprisoned are wrongly convicted? That figure then could represent the dollar amount we should ascribe to the life of an innocent person.

Maybe then you could say to those whose friends and loved ones were wrongfully executed, “Sorry you had to go through all this adversity and grief but, hey, look how much money we’ve saved!”

Hopefully, in the not too distant future, the human species will evolve to a point where we find no reason whatsoever to kill each other.

Patrick K. Goff
Sedro-Woolley


Freeze state, federal gas tax

Why hasn’t any pol suggested freezing the state and federal tax per gallon during this spike (hopefully) in petro prices? As things stand, we are going to have to use the same amount of gas and diesel we have been consuming for the past several years. Why keep a percentage rate in place. A fifty-cents-per-gallon take for the state and feds should be fine even if gas and diesel should reach $6 a gallon or worse.

I suspect we aren’t drilling in Alaska because our leaders want Middle East oil to be used up. After that, we will own a large percentage of the world oil reserves. Back to camels for the Middle Easterners.

Bad thing? Boeing would lose some valuable Arabian customers. That’s fine with me, even though I own Boeing stock.

Larry Partridge
La Conner


Immortal beings on a path

The path of the way is open, broad and clear, for those who are on it. The path of love is eternal. (Acts of love never end, but go on forever.)

A divine intercession has taken place, which is characterized by wrath, purgation and forgiveness.

Spear-sharp fear will appear in the hearts of those who judge, hate and kill.

A cleansing and a raising up will move among us. A planetary state of emergency will come into being. This world will be flooded with food, and the business of this world’s people will be that of saving lives. (When one is hungry, all are starving.)

In the cycle we have entered, each and every individual is being made personally responsible for the survival of our world, by which I mean that we are all being given the actual power to destroy it, as will be seen.

The peace of a civilized populace will prevail, universally and perpetually, up to and including the last word ever spoken here.

This is good news, like no other!

Also, in a recent dream, I am given to know that we were never “created” but have always been, and always will be — forever. We are immortal beings.

Leland Mellott
Mount Vernon


Mixed puppies aren’t purebred

I can’t begin to understand how people can try to sell an animal, saying: AKC purebred mixed puppies. What does that mean? Then these people are trying to sell them for $350. How outrageous. The animals aren’t AKC purebred if they’re mixed puppies. I think this should be stopped.

Shelly Johnson
Burlington


Three strikes law has gone awry

“Spending too much on criminals” (letter 4/19) should be preceded by “Unnecessarily.”

The three-strikes law is not doing what we voted for. More than 70 percent of those currently incarcerated under this law are spending life in prison after convictions of robbery 2 and/or assault 2, not the violent crimes that the law was intended to target. Very few are being sentenced under three strikes anymore because it has become the plea bargaining tool of the prosecuting attorney. One will plead guilty to most anything if the alternative is life in prison.

Our learned judges should be allowed to discern who deserves a life sentence and who does not. Violent crimes would merit long sentences in any case. Three strikers convicted of nonviolent crimes are being punished for future offenses, ones never perpetrated. Guilty until proven innocent?

One way to reduce our expenditures is to reduce recidivism, thus reducing the prison population. The only way to do that is to establish treatment and educational programs that are practically nonexistent now. There would be far fewer committing second strikes and third strikes if there were any rehabilitation in our facilities.

No person should be executed ever. By supporting capital punishment, you are reducing your morality to that of the guilty person you wish to put to death. Rationalizing your feelings by saying that person deserved to die, you are thinking exactly like those who have murdered their victims.

Cheryl Onstad
Anacortes


Population growth stressing planet

Rapid changes in our world include global warming, increasing fuel costs, increasing food costs, and so on. And changes are needed to survive, like “green” cars and houses.

But do the “media” and the government address the underlying problem? There are too many humans. Our world cannot support the present 6 billion humans, much less the 9 billion commonly forecast as our final Earth population.

Part of the blindness is that in the U.S., we hold that individual rights prevail. Each person is a fortress of rights. Other countries differ. China, for example, limits family size. That is a societal view, rather than an individual view. Which is right?

Man’s actions may bring chaos and death to us all, so we ask, “Should mankind as a species survive?” If our answer to that is yes, then what to do? The obvious way to survive is to reduce the number of humans. Is that an answer? Well, consider that the final population size of 9 billion means that the death rate will be as large as the birth rate when the population stops rising. Something will have to occur in the way of deaths or births or both.

It does not appear that the selfishness that already has limited and even depressed the population of the “developed” countries will do the trick. The very wealth that convinces families to reduce their size is the stuff (enormous use of fuel and other material things) that causes global warming and high costs of living globally. It suggests, therefore, that famine and war will stop population growth. No fun at all.

Today, discussion of population growth is not politically acceptable. Too bad, for Mother Nature will tell us about it soon enough. Meanwhile, we can continue to rearrange the deck chairs on the global Titanic.

Donald Stephens
La Conner


McCain’s GI Bill is an affront

I am writing to suggest the Senate reject John McCain’s watered-down GI Bill. It is an affront to our veterans and to those of us who support them. McCain’s bill actually lowers benefits — especially educational benefits — for some veterans who may have severe injuries that prevent them from completing a longer tour. Veteran Organizations are against McCain’s version of an updated GI Bill. Our citizens and those who represent us should be as well.

Juby Fouts
Guemes Island