OPINION

All this hyperventilating about Wall Street bonuses is bogus populism aimed at the appearance of being concerned about wasting taxpayer dollars.

If anyone is really concerned about wasting our money, Wall Street is a smoke screen intended to hide what Washington is doing to us and our future. The Wall Street "waste" is a pimple on the behind compared to what our politicians are doing.

Ad distorts Obama plan

I saw a new ad by the Committee for Truth in Politics and thought for a minute that I had been transported to DC Comics' Bizarro World, where up is down and black is white.

The commercial seems to attack President Barack Obama's plan to rein in the big banks, end abusive practices by the credit card and mortgage industry and ensure that taxpayers will never again have to bail out Wall Street.

But that is not the impression the ad gives, and because reforming our financial system can get technical, it's also ripe for distortion. It is too easy to make false claims about what's actually in the legislation. That's why it's so important to separate what the reforms will really do from the upside-down claims protecting the interests of the industry the legislation is designed to regulate.

Real financial reform will protect working families and small business by reining in the greedy, reckless behavior of big banks on Wall Street. Reform will crack down on the abuses by credit card companies and mortgage lenders. Financial reform will hold Wall Street accountable and prevent another financial crisis like this one, which has led to millions of Americans losing their jobs. And that's the truth in the politics of financial reform.

Our debt is a millstone

The ongoing hearings in the House grilling Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner have not addressed a key fact in the financial crisis. We are a huge debtor nation.

Our creditors, including China, Japan and OPEC, have a major stake in our economy. I would like to know how much influence they exerted in having the taxpayers back up the banking system in September 2008. Had the system been allowed to fail, we would likely be cut off from access to Chinese goods and OPEC oil.

This debt is a direct threat to our sovereignty. The sooner we take back our country and become a creditor nation, the better off we'll be.

Blame the rule-makers

Limiting executive bonuses to punish banks for the poor state of the economy is like giving an aspirin to a cancer and expecting the patient to heal.

We can't blame the bankers for our economy, because they were only playing by the rules of a free-market economy. Instead, I blame the lawmakers who set the rules.

Regrettably, the conservative Supreme Court recently ruled that there should be no limit to the amount that Wall Street fat cats can donate to the campaigns of conservative politicians who are supposedly seeking to curb the excesses of Wall Street. The irony should be obvious.

Republicans like to call for fiscal conservatism and free markets, but this fiscal conservative thinks that W's free markets were actually more akin to a lawless black market.

I would tell politicians the same thing I tell my children: Rules make the game fair and fun for everyone, even the losers.

Small business tax breaks

To fix the economy, we need specific answers, not rhetoric. We need to reduce the costs the government imposes on businesses and simplify the process of reinvesting capital.

The government can help by giving businesses tax breaks and incentives to stimulate capital equipment purchases. The tax breaks make it easier for businesses to acquire equipment. When small businesses can immediately write off percentages of capital expenditures, they generate capital through reduced costs.

Businesses with increased capital stimulate the economy and create job growth. Both sellers and buyers of capital equipment can inject life into a sluggish manufacturing sector. And the nation can begin to regain a powerful competitive position in the global market. We can return to being producers, not just consumers.

Tax incentives have been talked about recently, but nothing substantial has been done. Too often, incentive programs expire before we see results. When we make our tax system simpler on small businesses, we make competition a focal point. Let's put America back to work.

Re: "Anti-Bernanke faction grows -- 4 Democrats say they won't vote for Fed chief; 2 more unsure," Saturday news story.

If it's me, I really prefer preventive medicine to an autopsy. And I feel that way about the economy. That's why this flap over Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is so troubling. Do we really want government officials to do good autopsies, or do we want them to be proactive in heading off disasters? But how do we send them the message if their jobs are not at risk?

Bernanke is a really smart guy, but he mostly sat by, watched our economic ship head for the reefs and did nothing to prevent the wreck.

Maybe if Bernanke is given the boot, the next person will have a better understanding of what the job demands: intervention to head off problems -- not just a whiz-bang autopsy.

Re: "Pending home sales fall 16 percent," dallasnews.com.

These reports don't show how many people were evicted, or how many homes went into foreclosure. That's still happening because the jobs just aren't there. Job offers pay far less, and people are still in trouble. If people run out of unemployment assistance, does that mean the unemployment rate went down?

For example: Someone we know repossesses cars. He was trying to find a car. A neighbor indicated the owner's house is in foreclosure, and the couple will have to move by the end of the month. It is a very nice home. They both lost their jobs. Don't you think they would get jobs if they could?

During this year when our pledges ran behind and the money coming in slowed down, my church was faced with a grave situation. We didn't have enough money to pay our bills. We had to reduce the staff, curtail some programs and find ways to live within our means, which we did.

What a novel concept! We didn't have the ability to raise the debt limit, spend borrowed money wastefully, promote a program that may not be needed and try to move a society from capitalism to socialism. We all will have to account for our sins, and for some it will come in 2010.

Re: "Curing depression by spending," by Carolyn A. Duff, Sunday Letters.

Duff said that President Franklin Roosevelt did not manage to spend our way out of the Great Depression. Instead, she says it was World War II that ended the depression and cured the economy.

I would just like to ask her and others who say the same, exactly how did World War II cure our economy? The answer was by spending. Our deficits at the end of the war were higher than at any time of our history until today. In actual fact, it was a higher percentage of our GDP than our current debt is now.

So we did spend our way out of the depression, just spending our money on the military and military industry rather than peacetime activities.

Re: "A Credibility Problem -- Obama can't equally commit to spending, cuts," Friday Editorials.

It is hard to exaggerate how off-base this analysis actually is. There is something of a consensus among competent economists that a second stimulus may be wise at this point and that the size of the deficit is currently troubling but not unmanageable.

Just where were those on The Dallas Morning News editorial staff who are now so concerned about deficits when George W. Bush was irresponsibly lowering taxes on the affluent as he and his Republican Congress spent like drunken sailors on an "off the balance sheet" war, irresponsible drug entitlements, etc.? This editorial board endorsed Bush and gushed about Phil Gramm as these two brought us almost to complete economic ruination.

When it comes to managing the economy, Barack Obama, Ben S. Bernanke and Timothy Geithner get high marks indeed from those who know what they are talking about. Obama does not have a "credibility problem," The Dallas Morning News has an "ignorance" problem when it prints irresponsible, politicized drivel like this.

Folks, heed The Dallas Morning News when they report on Cowboys football. When it comes to commentary on the economy and policy, they are hacks regurgitating discredited warmed-over "Reaganomics."

Re: "Depression history repeating," by David Overton, Wednesday Letters.

Overton states that the reasons for our present situation are the same as for the Great Depression and that history is repeating itself.

Franklin Roosevelt, contrary to the public perception that he saved the country, tried to spend our way out of it, as our present Congress is doing. It failed, just as we are seeing failure today, and for the same reasons.

At the start of World War II, the country was still in a deep depression. The war is what cured our economy. Roosevelt was swept along for the ride and got the credit for it.

It amazes me how history has been tweaked to serve people's purposes.

Re: "Investors create mortgage win-win -- Deals benefit lenders, homeowners, but much of risk shifts to government," Sunday news story.

Please explain to me how a 62-year-old janitor sitting in a living room looking like a furniture showroom has a $440,000 mortgage.

I fail to see the win-win part of this, when the banking and government vultures who created the mortgage scam of the last 15 years by encouraging people to live beyond their means now repackage taxpayer scam, part deux.

Now, millions more in fees are being paid to rebundle the previous scheme on the back of taxpayers. Now, bring on government health care.

Re: "Failure should be an option -- But don't limit the size of financial institutions, says Jamie Dimon," Monday Viewpoints.

Dimon, chairman and chief executive of J.P. Morgan Chase, argues against capping the size of financial services institutions, citing the benefits of scale to customers worldwide. He proposes that if his firm is put at risk of collapse, it should be allowed to fail.

As Dimon later writes, the implications of a major financial institution's failure are global. He seems to be making an offer that he knows we must refuse. Is it possible to write regulatory policy that maintains the advantages to customers of successful big institutions, while mitigating repercussions?

If we have any doubts, we should be willing to sacrifice some of the benefits of size for the security of the system. Then we'll be able to accept Dimon's offer, and if need be, let his firm fail.

I returned to the Dallas-Fort Worth area last year after living in Killeen for nine years. Although I was a civilian, my job involved constant trips onto Fort Hood, so you can imagine how heartbreaking last week was for me.

My neighbors in the Fort Hood area were the least bigoted people I've ever known. When I returned to D-FW, I was stunned by the relative lack of interracial couples.

The one thing I know the good people of Fort Hood would not want is for this horrible tragedy to result in an increase of bigotry against innocent Muslim citizens.

Perhaps we should all spend our time praying for the families of the dead and wounded instead of excoriating an entire religion.

Re: "Taking hard road early now paying off for Ford -- Automaker reports $1B profit and expects a sunny 2011," Tuesday news story.

Of the three major automakers in the U.S., the only one that did not ask for, or take, any of the taxpayer bailout money is the only one that is making money -- Ford.

There is a lesson to be learned here about what happens to private enterprises when taxpayer money keeps them afloat.

At the one-year mark since President Barack Obama's election, the results speak for themselves.

I survived four years of the Jimmy Carter presidency and the second four years of George W. Bush, but I am prepared to make an early prediction. I truly believe that Barack Obama will go down in history as one of the worst presidents in the last 100 years.

For those who insist that it is too soon to make such a prediction, I give you Exhibit A: the economy.

With unemployment at 10 percent, an artificial gross domestic product and deficits that my grandchildren will not pay off, I find it increasingly difficult to see how this president can come away with a positive image.

When creditor nations will not buy our paper, we need to take two steps back and ask ourselves where we go from here.

Re: "Exxon's profit plummets -- While others cut back, Irving oil giant says it will keep investments, jobs," Friday Business.

I assume that the same people who cried out in anguish last year when Exxon reported record profits are now sponsoring a bailout for Exxon.

Maybe it would help a little if they averaged Exxon profits over, say, 10 or 20 years, like reasonable investors do.

Maybe the media could start the trend.

Re: "Reining in the fat cats -- Capping CEO pay might feel good but could lead to an exodus of top talent, says Linda Chavez," Monday Viewpoints.

Chavez treated us to the same desperate defense of the indefensible that we have heard before: How will corporations keep the best and brightest if they can't pay their executive elite ever-more disproportionate salaries?

She goes on to frame the issue in terms of populist revenge and says how unfair it is that the old right-wing bogeyman "Hollywood" isn't similarly targeted.

It is not revenge but simple justice. The top echelons of the corporate elite have taken for themselves the bulk of the productivity gains that we have all worked hard to produce in this country. They have sent our jobs overseas and cut our salaries and benefits while increasing their own.

We who labor on far lower rungs of the corporate hierarchy are tired of this situation -- the excessive pay for executives comes directly out of the pool for our salaries. We don't compete with Hollywood or sports figures for our daily bread.

Re: "The Cost of Giving -- Nation can't afford $250 handout to seniors, Thursday Editorials.

The Dallas Morning News said seniors would be "stealing" from future generations if we receive a $250 bonus. The younger generation has earning power that seniors no longer have.

Our Medicare premiums continue to increase, our supplemental insurance continues to increase and our necessary medications increase. Our Social Security income probably will not increase for three years.

I love young people (I have children and grandchildren) but someone needs to think about the senior population.

Re: "$1.4 trillion deficit is worst in U.S. since '45 -- Large gap complicates stimulus plan of more spending, tax breaks," Saturday news story.

For the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, we experienced the worst federal deficit since 1945. The Treasury Department announced a $1.4 trillion deficit, nearly 10 percent of the gross domestic product, and nearly $1 trillion more than the 2008 deficit. I was very disappointed that The Dallas Morning News buried that alarming news on page 17A.

It is not only a tragedy that our government has failed so miserably in managing our money, but it tried tried to hide the news in a Friday afternoon press release. I would be embarrassed too if I had been trying to pay my Visa bill with my MasterCard. At this rate, the Obama administration won't have to turn out the lights when he finally leaves the White House in 2012. The electricity will already have been turned off for failure to pay the bill.

... or look at it in perspective

The $1.4 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2009 equals nearly 10 percent of our gross national product. That's not so bad compared to 1945, when the deficit reached 21.5 percent of the GNP, considering George W. Bush's huge tax cuts for the wealthy, eight years of fighting two wars and the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

Re: "Texas ranks nearly last in getting funds -- Disparity partly because state spends less money on housing, Medicaid, college research," Sept. 28 news story.

Texans are not fond of government handouts. This is, in part, why the Lone Star State is receiving fewer stimulus dollars. We'd rather earn it for ourselves fair and square. Unfortunately, our own government isn't giving us a fair shot at lucrative federal contracts, instead outsourcing them to foreign companies that take our jobs and taxpayer dollars overseas.

For instance, French aerospace manufacturer EADS is bidding for the Pentagon's $35 billion contract to build a new Air Force airborne refueling tanker.

Yet their tanker aircraft was funded using $5 billion of the same subsidies that the World Trade Organization has said are illegal.

This is the same company that has been implicated in bribery and insider trading. The tanker contract could support a critical 44,000 jobs -- 3,000 in Texas. But if our Defense Department ignores EADS' illegal subsidies, those jobs and our tax dollars will be on the next the next flight to Paris.

The Pentagon and Congress should penalize EADS for its illegal subsidies, and adjust its bid for the tanker contract to level the playing field.

With the economy on the rocks, the last thing American workers need is for their own government to give them the short end of the stick.

Mounting deficit concerns me
Re: "Deficit concerns mount -- 10-year, $9 trillion forecast taxes fragile economy," and "Seeing signs that clouds are lifting -- Recession over, Fisher says, but jobs lag far behind," Wednesday news stories.
Shame on The Dallas Morning News for burying the article about the debt on page 11A. Instead, the lead headline on page 1 stated that "clouds are lifting."
Nothing could be further from the truth. The huge deficit will bury this country, along with future generations.
Our politicians just don't get it.
And we the people keep sending the same politicians back to Washington, so we don't get it either.

The ticking debt bomb
Re: "Deficit may grow to $9 trillion over decade -- New forecast raised by $2 trillion to reflect slumping revenue," and, "Asia pulls back on U.S. debt -- Figures show China reducing its share of Treasury securities," Aug. 22 news stories.
The debate raging over health care reform is a petty distraction.
How much longer can our nation survive if our government continues piling up debt and if foreign countries stop funding our debt?
If this debt bomb explodes, America will quickly collapse into Third World status, and the future for us, our children and our grandchildren will be bleak.
If you cannot grasp the significance of this lethal threat to our nation's survival, please stop voting.

Re: "Perry out of touch on jobless," by Tom Beene, Monday Letters.

I am in touch with the jobless. I am having a difficult time surviving.

But Gov. Rick Perry is doing what he thinks is best for Texas. With federal money comes additional government control. President Barack Obama is trying to have the government control everything in this country.

I support keeping Texas free from complete federal control for as long as possible.

Re: "Call in the Army -- Reserves can offer 'human capital' to employers," Wednesday Editorials.

The economy has been unsatisfactory for the past several months, but it seems to be recovering now. Unemployment has had a great impact on the veterans especially.

I agree with Maj. Gen. Keith L. Thurgood, who says that not hiring veterans is a waste of talented people, because they should have jobs as a result of their training.

The Employer Partnership Initiative is a concept that will benefit corporations and taxpayers. Despite these benefits, it has a downside for employees, because they could be called to active duty at any time. All this program provides is the sharing of employees.

With all this information, I find the idea of joining the Army more appealing. In these hard times, college graduates are not finding positions in the workforce. If I were to go to the Army, I would be trained and guaranteed a job, which would make me feel secure.

The Obama administration has expressed its displeasure with auto manufacturers, banks and insurance and mortgage companies over their irresponsible use of debt.

To serve as a model for financially excellent behavior, the administration has created the largest aggregate debt in the history of the country.

Not to worry, it will be just fine. Trust them.

After General Motors goes into bankruptcy and current contractual obligations are absolved, the company will be able to manufacture with greater profit a much larger percentage of automobiles in China for sale in the U.S.

Ah, what's that slogan? What's good for General Motors is good for America.

Re: "Bankruptcy surge hurts U.S. pension insurer -- With $33.5B shortfall, PBGC says funds OK; auto woes are concern," Thursday news story.

In the table with the story, under, "PBGC does not guarantee," you failed to mention the most important item the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. does not guarantee.

It does not guarantee the most popular 401(k) plans and other defined contribution plans, including Employee Stock Ownership Plans.

In these difficult financial times, when millions have lost their 401(k) accounts, people may be looking for guarantees of any kind and may incorrectly assume that their 401(k) plans are also guaranteed by the PBGC.

Re: "Buyers gain as dealers cut loose -- 44,000 bargains sit on Chrysler lots with just a few weeks to be sold," Monday Business.

Finally, someone in business is experiencing humility for excesses. Unfortunately, the corporate rationing of GM and Chrysler dealers will do the most damage in rural areas and small towns in Texas. In the rush to urbanize our cities for maximum profit, business has forgotten how important car dealerships are, with their funding support of schools, local social programs and employment.

I guess everyone will have to start buying Fords -- unless those dealers go away, too.

When the daily headlines seem like a constant stream of bad news, it's only natural to seek answers for the causes of the financial crisis. But we must not get sidetracked from taking necessary steps that will put us on the path to financial recovery.

Most banks in Texas continue to do their part to keep our economy running. JPMorgan Chase made $6.4 billion in new loans and lines of credit during the first quarter, helping more than 300,000 Texas families and businesses. Fully $4.5 billion of this went directly to Texas consumers, including $160 million to 9,851 students for higher education -- up almost 150 percent from the prior three months. We lent $2.4 billion to provide 12,826 new home mortgages -- up 24 percent; and $550 million for 25,636 auto purchases -- up 81 percent.

We are offering mortgage assistance programs to keep struggling families in their homes. Through these efforts, Chase has prevented about 150,000 foreclosures since October 2008. We have lowered payments for well over 80 percent of the mortgages we modified for borrowers who were behind on Chase-owned loans.

With the cooperation of our customers and the government, I am confident that our economy will soon recover.

Re: "Federal deficit to top $1.8 trillion -- Government will have to borrow 46 cents for every dollar it spends," Tuesday news story.
In Star Trek parlance, Main Street may be forced to initiate a saucer separation from Wall Street, or, gasp, jettison the warp core. We limp back to Earth at sublight.
For all you non-Trekkies:
Had the government not deviated from annually balancing the budget, we would not be in the horrific scenario of contemplating monetizing the debt. The easy way out is for Congress to induce hyper-inflation so they can pay back this nearly $20 trillion in future tax load with dramatically inflated dollars.
Of course, it would mean double-digit interest rates and the destruction of the dollar.
The economy slows down as cost of funds becomes prohibitive, unemployment rises and a sustained malaise takes over.
However, government is now so mentally impaired that it thinks it has a shot at actually containing the damage officials are inflicting by hyperinflating the payback.

Re: "I question the funding," by Barbara Alexander, Sunday Letters.
Enough about the future generations having this big debt to pay down. Isn't that what we who are currently working and paying taxes are doing right now and have been doing?
It's how the system works, and, despite all the complaining, it works pretty well. Most people I know with kids spend a lot of money on unnecessary items -- Hannah Montana tickets, iPods, iPhones, computers, computer games, expensive trips.
So do I feel bad that in 20 or so years, those kids will have to pay taxes? Hardly. A majority of people in this country live comfortable lives and fail to appreciate that fact.
If you doubt that, then volunteer to spend a couple of weeks in Darfur or another impoverished, embattled country, and then you'll see how hollow your complaints really are.

I am writing to express my strong opinion against any legislation restricting credit card companies' ability to modify interest rates based on the credit risk of a consumer.
This country is already in the midst of an enormous financial crisis largely because the government forced banks to make mortgages to people who weren't creditworthy. And now these talks of preventing credit card companies from utilizing credit report data to fully assess an individual's risk and consequently alter the price they pay is yet another instance of the government interfering with the free-market economy and sets us up for more problems down the road.
Our capitalist economy can only function properly when external controls are minimized as much as possible to allow the free market to control itself. That is something the current administration, and much of the country, seems to either have forgotten or not understand

If the Obama administration turns loans into GM stock, you won't like what you get.
Can you see the Obama people ever saying no to the United Autoworkers on pay, benefits, etc.? The UAW is their dearest constituent.

Driving through Highland Park recently made me realize how bad their economy is.
I saw a poodle on a leash that wasn't wearing clothes.

Re: "Even billionaires feel the blues -- Downturn shrinks fortunes of Dallas' super rich, has some juggling debt," Monday news story.
I feel so sad for the rough times billionaires are going through in our economy. They won't be able to drink champagne every night with their lobster while spending the summer months at their estates in Bermuda.
And this year, they may not be able to buy another professional sports team toy to amuse themselves.
I'm sorry, but I'm getting a lump in my throat, and tears are welling up in my middle-class eyes. The sadness is overwhelming me.

My husband and I have been trying to purchase a home for the past three months. We have been looking at foreclosed homes.
Three months later, we have the fourth bid on a third house. Banks will not take our preapproved money and get rid of a bad loan when we are offering 25 percent down.
They keep upping the prices after they get a few bids in. I cannot comprehend how banks can be asking our government for bailout money when regular people are offering them money, and they won't take it.

Re: "Living large, minus all the gluttony -- How do we make pursuit of the American dream more satisfying, less selfish? asks Maureen Dowd," Thursday Viewpoints.
Dowd's column is a fine example of her complete lack of understanding of how the economy works. She asks, "How do we come to terms with the gluttony that exploded our economy?" It is the gluttony, as she chooses to describe it, which fuels the growth of the economy and the prosperity we want. Yes, the gluttony exploded (as in expanded growth) the U.S. economy and thereby raised our standard of living. Growth is what we need.
Unfortunately, Dowd's approach sees little relevance in growth. Her focus is on controlling and managing the economy. She asks, "How do we make the pursuit of the American Dream a satisfying quest rather than a selfish one?" In other words, how do we control what makes people happy and what people purchase? Does that not bother anyone?

Letter proved instructive
Re: "Dear AIG, I quit! The following is a letter sent Tuesday by Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president for AIG's financial-products unit, to Edward Liddy, chief executive of AIG," last Sunday Points.
Thank you for publishing DeSantis' letter of resignation explaining not only his blameless position in the AIG meltdown, but also why bonuses were contracted in the first place.
I particularly like the analogy of stiffing the plumber who fixed the pipes, because a careless electrician burned the house down. The description of Congress' disgraceful treatment of Liddy, who, like DeSantis, pulls down $1 a year, was on the mark.

Finally, another side emerges
Everyone touched by the mortgage banking collapse should be grateful for what Jake DeSantis had to say in his letter to AIG CEO Edward Liddy.
The over-the-top hysteria surrounding bonuses lawfully paid to AIG executives was fanned by politicians trying to divert attention from their own egregious conduct and by an unprincipled press that smelled blood.
We finally had a chance to see the entire picture from the eyes of a person very much on the inside of the entire affair, and, as it turned out, a person of higher moral character than the self-serving inquisitor politicians, the attorneys general of two states and the self-appointed, would-be avengers of the mob.

Stranger than fiction
My first impression of the letter from Jake DeSantis to Edward M. Liddy, CEO of AIG, was that DeSantis must certainly be a fictional character created by The Dallas Morning News for entertainment, but then I realized there are actually people out there who command large salaries, yet have the emotional maturity of a 16-year-old boy demanding a new Corvette from his father for his first car.

Just where was Jake's whistle?
I guess Jake DeSantis lost his whistle during the course of his 11 years at AIG.
Sorry, Jake. Your silence makes you as culpable as the people who left the company.

Re: "Budget plan stresses restraint Senate -- GOP leaders say big initiatives too costly despite stimulus," March 26 news story.
As a retired educator, I was disappointed to read that the Texas state legislators are proposing a decrease in the state's contribution to the Teacher Retirement System pension fund from 6.58 percent to 6.4 percent. Nothing less than a state contribution of 11.25 percent, or an increase in state contribution and active member contribution to 9.07 percent each will make the fund sound. It definitely does not seem prudent to reduce the current contribution.
Also discouraging was the news that retirees will probably not receive a pension increase. We do not have a cost of living adjustment and must rely on the state to vote in favor of an annuity increase. Since 2001, the only increase we have received was an extra payment. Just imagine the loss of buying power since 2001.

Of course, Wagoner muscled out
Re: "U.S. pushes out General Motors' CEO -- Treasury may take deeper role in automaker's restructuring," Monday news story.
General Motors is doomed. It would have been much better to reorganize under the bankruptcy statutes than to go hat-in-hand to the federal government for a handout. Then, agreements with the labor unions could have been negotiated without the heavy, biased hand of the union-obligated bureaucracy.
The Obama administration's dismissal of Rick Wagoner should have been anticipated: When you make a pact with the devil, you are subject to his rules.
Let's see what this could mean for GM's future: Only green-colored Chevrolets permitted by Chairman Al Gore. Cute cars by Chief Designer Barney Frank. Incentives by CFO Tim Geithner, e.g.: "Buy a Cadillac and cheat on your taxes without fear."

Most AIG staffers unjustly blamed
The biggest victims of the entire AIG fiasco are the hard-working AIG employees who were uninvolved with the crises-causing credit default contracts.
The media and elected officials paint with an overly broad brush when they condemn "AIG executives" for the Financial Products unit's employee bonuses and the mistakes made at the highest level of the holding company and the FP unit.
While the number of FP employees has been reported at around 400, the total number of employees at all the AIG companies exceeds 115,000. Therefore, depending on one's definition of "executive," the total number of AIG executives would be 5,000, 10,000 or more people. They work for many separate AIG companies and received no benefits or bonuses from the FP unit's activities.
These innocent employees are suffering more than most from AIG's problems. First, they are likely to be stockholders through AIG's benefits plans, and the stock's value has dropped by more than 95 percent. They are also taxpayers who will shoulder the same burden as everyone else in repaying the debt being incurred in bailout.
Last, though they are working in separate, profitable and well-run business units, they are being unfairly branded as scoundrels or criminals.
In many ways, the 115,000 employees of AIG have been just as victimized as were Enron's employees. It is time for the media and our elected officials to tone down and clarify their disparaging pronouncements about "AIG executives" and for the rest of us to cut the innocent some slack.

I fear impending socialism
Re: "Geithner defends strategies -- Washington, not market, can solve crisis, he says, urging patience, realistic expectations," Monday Business.
It scares me that the government can fire a company's CEO if the company is in financial trouble.
Then I read that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said that Washington alone was equipped to salvage the economy. He said: "The market will not solve this and the great risk for us is that we do too little, not that we do too much."
Both of these scare me and should scare anyone who believes in our economic system. Both the headline and Geithner's comments have us aimed for a European style of socialism.
If the government can fire the GM CEO, who is next? Is the government able to determine when we have spent too much on the bailouts?

Model depended on spending
Re: "Banks blame rule for meltdown -- 'Mark-to-market' sank values unfairly, they say in girding for battle," last Sunday Business.
This article is disingenuous at best. Mark-to-market valuation rules acerbated the valuations of securitized loan portfolios, thereby undermining the supposedly A ratings on "pigs with lipstick" mortgage loans.
The true cause of the meltdown was a business model that relied on the continuation of consumer spending, regardless of incomes not keeping pace with costs, thereby causing consumers to become increasingly overextended.
Consumers kept the economy afloat in 2007 when the signs of a recession were emerging. When the well ran dry, and consumers finally stopped buying, the house of cards collapsed.
When financial institutions retain the loans they make instead of offloading them to investors, they will be better captains of their portfolios and end the systemic risks present in our current system.

Admirable food budget
Re: "Six sites to help you sack grocery costs," Sunday news story.
My wonderful wife earns an A+ in providing food for our family according to "Defining Food Budgets" in Sunday's paper. While the article states that a thrifty family of four spends $603 a month on food, my wife spends less than $400 a month for our family of five, providing three healthy meals a day.

Re: "Capitalism without capitalists -- Why does Geithner have to bribe investors to take risks? wonders Daniel Gross," Sunday Points.
I wish I thought Daniel Gross was correct in suspecting that Wall Street has lost its nerve. It seems more likely that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's plan should be called, "no hedge fund left behind."
Someone realized that those guys make campaign contributions, too. The bank shareholders and debt holders are already grateful enough. Their assets are going to be preserved at whatever taxpayer expense is required.
But the hedge funds have yet to profit because the banks won't sell them their good assets. Wow, has Geithner fixed that: Not only can the hedge funds bid higher with taxpayer money, but if they mistakenly buy a turkey, they can give it to the Treasury and default on the loan.
Now they too can make a lot of money at taxpayer expense and with no risk. And, the taxpayers? They get screwed, same as always.

Re: "U.S. behind the wheel -- Obama demands restructuring before GM, Chrysler receive more federal aid," Tuesday news story.
OK, so the government has forced GM CEO Rick Wagoner to resign as a result of his company's financial woes -- some, but not all of which, he had a hand in.
Does that mean we'll see President Barack Obama and every member of Congress resign, since, by their own standard of measure, they've failed as miserably, if not worse, in managing our budget and the economy?
I won't hold my breath.

Re: "Industry groups back health care bills," Wednesday Business.
As the economy falters, working Americans pay the price, with some losing their health insurance benefits when employers look to cut costs, and when they lose their jobs. It's time for us to fix the health care system so it works for all Americans and ensure that it can stand the test of an economy in recession.
Doctors see the repercussions the failing health care system has on the uninsured. Despite the fact that nearly 70 percent of physicians provide charity care, most uninsured patients don't have regular access to the preventive care they need to lead healthier lives.
Many serious health problems are preventable, and if we can help Americans live healthier, we can reduce disease and decrease health care spending in the long run.
The American Medical Association is working toward national health care reform that ensures a choice of affordable health insurance for all Americans, whether they get health insurance on their own or through an employer.

If the taxpayers own AIG (Always in Greed), and the executives from AIG who paid themselves those nice bonuses are also taxpayers, does that mean they own AIG, too? Maybe that's the problem.

Congress, feel the pain
I have the solution to finding a party that can purchase some of these toxic assets of all these lending institutions. How about the retirement fund of the U.S. Congress? No sense in letting just us taxpayers foot the bill.

Seeing through Congress' ire
The outrage and indignation expressed by members of Congress toward AIG is a bit of a joke. Members of the congressional body who blasted AIG CEO Edward Liddy for using taxpayer money to pay those million-dollar bonuses belong to the same group who have no qualms about wasting billions of taxpayer dollars to fund their pet pork projects. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Arguing over chump change
It's been just over two months since the Obama administration took over. They couldn't screw things up this badly in this short of a time even if they tried. It was the Bush administration that began this AIG kiss-up. Now the Republicans, in a get-even mentality, try for a carcass du jour with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.
It's a sad state of affairs that $165 million is now chump change, but, in the big picture, it really is. Any time we spend on bonus money is time away from the billion-dollar issues.
What is the serenity prayer about help me accept the things I can't change?

The AIG case study
This is yet another example of rewarding revenue creation instead of profitable business development. The problem is not in having an employment contract or a bonus program. The ability to earn incentive income is the juice that drives business growth.
Unfortunately, so many compensation systems are designed to reward the wrong behavior. This was clearly the case at AIG. If incentives had been tied to profitability, there would have been no bonuses paid and we wouldn't be bogged down in this argument. In business, as in life, you get the behavior you reward.

Congress distracted, spineless
The problem with our economy can be boiled down to one sentence: The majority of our elected representatives has no moral courage.
They are more interested in being re-elected, pleasing senior members of Congress or special interest groups than doing the right thing. This is not rocket science, folks. For the most part, common sense is still the best solution. Term limits are one important answer, but only one.
Moral accountability has to be enforced. People have to talk to each other, and political ambitions must be put aside for the welfare of the nation.
Your moral choice is obvious. When you pull the sheet over your head at night in the dark and sleep, you know what's right. Earn your pay and work for the people of the U.S. Come together for the betterment of the country, not for your personal gain.

When Ronald Reagan was elected president after the disaster of Jimmy Carter, the economy was a lot worse than it is today, despite the rhetoric out of the White House and Congress.
But, because of Reagan's policies, we had a boom for the next 20 years. His secret? Get government out of the way and let the people of the country work it out. It has worked amazingly well as long as freedom and the American spirit are allowed to work.
Unfortunately for America, there are beginning to be more takers than achievers.

Re: "Straus disagrees with stimulus plan," Saturday news story.
I find it very interesting that Texas House Speaker Joe Straus is criticizing the Obama administration for creating debt through the stimulus plan.
Where were he and all of the other Republicans when the Bush administration was creating debt and leading the U.S. into the mess we are in today?
I guess it is politics as usual to criticize the Democrats. Too bad.

Re: "Six years in Iraq -- Iraqis have made ample political progress; now they need leader who can deliver, says Trudy Rubin," Friday Viewpoints.
Trudy Rubin states that Iraqis "are desperate for officials who are less corrupt and can deliver jobs." It surprises me that even with rising unemployment here at home, there is very little interest in finding ways to directly employ large numbers of Americans in a productive way at a minimal wage.
Our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan might seem less of a waste if we considered these countries as mirrors which might be reflecting our own country's shortcomings. Our nation looked at massive infrastructure rebuilding projects as the salvation for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Many have told us why they don't work and what will work. These lessons on job creation should be remembered back home as well.

Re: "Stop outsourcing, for a start," by Kathy Weaver, Wednesday Letters.
Just a suggestion, but if the government really wants to do something, cut taxes on industry and business to 25 percent if they employ a high percentage of American workers. This could increase national employment levels and could possibly make us more competitive in the world market.

Re: "We're creating jobs, not taxes," by Rick Perry, Tuesday Letters.
Perry says, "Our current unemployment system has been helping Texans who lost their jobs through no fault of their own as they look for full-time employment and will continue to do so."
How does one receive "unemployment help" after three months of benefits and two months of extension runs out? It is obvious that Perry has never had to file an unemployment claim.

... and over-taxed employers
While I agree with Gov. Rick Perry's decision to not accept federal funds because of the strings attached, I think he needs to look at his own house when it comes to strangling Texas employers.
The so-called Franchise Tax, which is an income tax on business, is strangling Texas employers plenty by itself. While it was suppose to help reduce property taxes, I don't think you'll find too many people that have seen a significant reduction. But at the same time, it has over-taxed Texas businesses to the point that it has probably cost jobs.
Our company's federal income tax was minimal for 2007. Because the tax is based on "margin," our state of Texas business income tax was 90 percent of our net income.
Join the stranglers, governor.

Re: "Why Perry is correct," by Lester Fyshe, Thursday Letters.
Some people are just gifted with the ability to get right to the heart of the matter.
Fyshe includes this remarkable but enlightening statement: "The people it would help do not vote for Republicans and, therefore, do not deserve any assistance."
With just a few strokes of the pen, Fyshe succinctly and insightfully illustrates one of the most serious problems threatening our country today. To paraphrase, "If (fill in the cause or action) is good for our country (state or city), but won't get Republicans elected to public office, then it's not worthy of the support of the people."

I'm amazed that people are upset with the AIG bonuses only because they received a taxpayer bailout. I'll go a step farther and ask how a company can justify $160 million in bonuses even during good economic times? Such a business that skims that much profit for so many employees must have serious contempt for its customers to begin with.
Likewise, I don't agree with the proposal of government taxing away those bonuses. Laws must be created so that all compensation is transparent, shareholders get a vote on executive pay, and all bonuses are deferred for a period of years so that executives are forced to make decisions for the long term good of a company and not just short term gains.
Executives must have their pay limited to a factor relative to the lowest-paid person at the company. If the lowest-paid person at a company makes $20,000 per year, the highest-paid executive could make no more than perhaps 100 times that, or $2 million. A pay raise for the fat cats would mandate a pay raise for all employees.

I don't see much difference between Bernie Madoff and AIG executives, except Madoff will be the only one who will have to pay for his crime.

Re: "After federal bailout, AIG to give $100 million in bonuses -- Firm says it's legally bound to pay executives whose unit nearly ruined insurer," Sunday news story.
I think I am going to become a thief. It is so obvious that the lesson is that crime pays.
Now that I have my smart remark out of the way, I am begging anyone who does business with AIG to stop. Do research, find a firm that either has not needed a government bailout, or if you find one that has had to have help, make sure no bonuses whatsoever are given out.

Re: "With money to invest, I'd be rich," by Ron Lowe, Tuesday Letters.
I feel a point needs to be made. The financial problems we face could be better understood in the following situation:
Let's say Ron sells hats. He goes out to sell hats on a windy day. A big gust comes up and Ron's hats go flying. One of Ron's hats flies into your hands. You could hand the hat back to Ron. You could stop and help Ron gather his hats. You could keep the hat and consider it yours.
You could gather as many hats as you could and when your hands were full you call your friends to tell them of the windfall: "What was he thinking selling hats on a windy day?" What would you do?
Sometimes just one person's action turns a crowd. Every windfall dollar blew out of someone else's hand. Act like every transaction is with a friend and maybe it will be.

Isn't it strange you never hear right-wing radio acknowledge that there are millions of liberals, leftists and Democrats who pay taxes too? Therefore, it's not just Republicans' money being taken from them and redistributed.

I keep thinking about how President Barack Obama is going to solve the financial crisis in the U.S.
My job will soon be outsourced to India. Obama needs to put an end to the outsourcing of American jobs to foreign countries.
I know that this is not the only way to solve the financial crisis in the U.S., but it would be a start. More and more people seem to be losing their jobs because American companies can outsource jobs to a foreign country for a fraction of what they are paying American citizens.
If we can stop the outsourcing of American jobs, then at least we can fix part of the problem.

Re: "When the repairman turns radical -- Rod Dreher wonders: What happens when ordinary Joes lose faith in civil society?" Sunday Points.
Dreher is right on point.
Individuals like Dave usually have only themselves to rely on and understand how much tax policy, budget-busting spending and the drain of social programs really affect the working class.
As a small-business owner, I think the state and federal governments have developed the attitude that they are not there for the taxpayers, but that the working class of America is there for them.
With automatic pay raises and increased spending accounts for Congress, it is only a matter of time until enough people ask: Why should I work so hard if everything I make goes to the government?
I hope that we can change things before we find out.

Re: "Should the president succeed?" by Greg Mahan, Richardson
Mahan ends his short letter by asking, "Do you want Obama to succeed?" The real question is why would anyone want our president not to succeed? The future of our country is at stake on President Barack Obama's success, and I believe people should give serious thought to flippant comments before they make them.
It's one thing to go to the polls and vote your conscience, it's quite another to verbally wish our president failure. It's downright unpatriotic.

While I view the money lost by Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme a tragedy for both individuals and charitable organizations, I am still confused as to why Madoff's crime is continually reported as the largest Ponzi scheme ever. Could someone please explain how that title isn't reserved for the current Social Security system?

Things look bleak. I wish I had money to invest in the stock market now. This is the best opportunity I've seen in my lifetime.
The markets will either tank or bottom out, and you will reap rewards for your determination and foresight. You can't lose.

Re: "Perry rejects part of stimulus - Dems angry as he calls $556 million for jobless a burden on business."
I know so many people who have lost their jobs (me included, in November). And now our illustrious Gov. Rick Perry wants to decline unemployment benefits from the stimulus package, while also being aware that our state unemployment coffers are almost empty!
I thought the governor of a state was supposed to represent the people, not just conservatives and business. As Perry is pandering to the far right wing of the Republican Party, let's just hope several of them get laid off, so they won't vote for him in the primary.

... so feds can't control us ...
I am so grateful that Gov. Rick Perry is not accepting any federal bail out money. It's just common sense, that whomever you are in debt to can ultimately control you. I am deeply grateful that he is standing on principle and not allowing Texas to be reliant on President Barack Obama.

... but workers need assistance
Does Gov. Rick Perry really believe that he is saving the economic future of the state by denying unemployment benefits to part-time workers? They have been devastated by this economy crisis as much as full-time employees.
People that hold these jobs are often the first ones let go. These jobs often have no benefits at all. They have families to support and bills to pay. Why is their plight any less than full-time employees?
By denying unemployment benefits to this sector you are forcing them to go to the state for welfare, food stamps and Medicaid. Perry is so out of touch with his constituents and their economic troubles.

If President Barack Obama succeeds, taxes will go up dramatically, your health care will be controlled by bureaucrats, cap and trade will drive energy costs through the roof and the national debt will reach incomprehensible levels for generations to come.
Do you want Obama to succeed?

If anyone could accurately predict anything related to the economy, he or she would have predicted the recession and the mortgage bust. There were no experts before this recession began, and there are certainly even fewer experts now.
It's almost embarrassing to read stories in the paper that quote experts about the duration of this downturn.

Re: "A new direction -- It's up to moderates to fight the president's uber-partisan tendencies, says David Brooks," Wednesday Viewpoints.
Reading Brooks' critical commentary concerning President Barack Obama's "redistribution of wealth" surprised me because I like him and look forward to his view on PBS Friday nights.
Where was his and his fellow Republicans' criticism when Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush reduced the taxes on the rich and redistributed the wealth upward while creating huge deficits?
My understanding of Obama's tax plan is that the tax rate for the wealthy would only go back to the level that existed under Bill Clinton, which helped provide prosperity for all classes and ended up with a surplus.
I find this duplicity from Brooks and Republicans profoundly hypocritical.

As a retired CPA, I am perplexed by the Bernard Madoff and R. Allen Stanford Ponzi schemes. I have to ask: Where were the auditors? Such investment firms should be audited and CPA auditing procedures should at least disclose whether or not there were actual investment trades going on, not to mention the accuracy of financial statements.

Newspapers are piling up in the corner, and I feel as though I am sitting on the tracks waiting for the train.
Why should I be willing to pay for programs if our politicians are not? How can Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner owe $128,000 in taxes and still be in office? If the bailout is going to require a sacrifice on our parts, how come they are not willing to share the burden?
With all this talk about the "wealthy" who make over $250,000 a year, how much do government officials make? I'm just curious; can a person become "wealthy" by serving the American people?

Re: "GOP should cooperate," by Jerry D. Teitelbaum, Sunday Letters.
Teitelbaum needs to be reminded that Barack Obama was elected president, not dictator, and the system allows for checks and balances for bad or good policy, not dictatorial directives.
If allowed to go unchecked, his lack of business, constitutional and economic experience will wreck this country. We need to give him a chance, but we do not need to destroy all our national and personal wealth in the process.
We have solved national crises before without destroying the liberty, as well as the net worth, that is the foundation of this country.

Why is President Barack Obama so determined to bail out the big banks while millions of hard-working American families are drowning in credit card debt? If those banks disappeared, so would that debt.
Financially struggling Americans were condemned to pay, becoming little more than serfs toiling for their debt lords and sinking ever deeper into a mire of sky-high interest rates, exorbitant fees and crippling penalties. Now, suddenly: "We are all in this together!"
Let the big banks reap the ruin sown from their own greed. If Obama really cared about American families, he would allow those usurers to perish.

Re: "A plan to save auto worker jobs," by George Venner, Saturday Letters.
Venner suggested giving a rebate to the purchaser of every vehicle manufactured in the U.S. to help GM, Ford and Chrysler. I guess he does not realize that most of the Hondas and Toyotas sold in the U.S. are also manufactured here.
The difference is that the American companies' employees and retired employees receive larger benefits -- now at taxpayer expense.

Re: "Leppert saw WaMu bust from front row -- Mayor, others on bank's board taking heat for missing warning signs," Sunday news story.
I was glad to read that Mayor Tom Leppert had experience with bad real estate investments while he helped direct Washington Mutual into bankruptcy. It should serve him well as he invests $500 million of taxpayer money in a hotel.

I am not at all happy with what has taken place in our country, with loss of savings for my family, my friends and obviously to millions of other Americans. Why are we not up in arms about this?

I am a member of the "silent majority" in age. I am tired of being silent while business executives and legislators, who were to provide oversight on all of this financial and mortgage business, did nothing - at our expense. I am tired of hearing about what is going to be done to straighten this out.

Stimulus package? It is not going to stimulate my retirement. I am going to be nonpartisan: Why are the American people (rich people, poor people, middle-class people) not screaming and hollering about what has happened - particularly those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own?

We are all suffering. We have no mechanism to turn to so that our voices can be heard. Maybe nobody is upset, as I am, with what has taken place.

I don't want my tax dollars spent this way, but it does not do any good for me to holler at my senators and Congress members. They voted against this stimulus plan. I am so frustrated that it has gotten to this point: We need to stand up and be counted.

How do we do that? Or is it so late that we will just have to grin and bear it? Sorry. I can't do that anymore.

The Democrats believe that the only way to get out of debt is to spend more money. The way President Barack Obama is spending, he should have us out of debt in no time.
After the spending spree, then it is a declaration of bankruptcy that actually clears the debt. After Obama bankrupts the country, then we can all start over again from scratch as equals.

Republicans held the White House for the last eight years and both houses of Congress for 12 of the last 14 years. During that time they deregulated, privatized, cut taxes (during two wars), handed out no-bid contracts and passed favorable legislation for big-time donors.
They've allowed lenders, credit card companies, energy companies and Wall Street in general to run amok. They've turned a large surplus into the largest deficit in this country's history.
And Gov. Rick Perry should look up the word hypocrite. It could be aptly applied to someone who caterwauls and drones on about the bailout, and then quietly accepts the cash.

Re: "Take the Money Wisely -- Legislators should beware of strings in stimulus," Thursday Editorials.
The editorial recommends that Texas beware of strings attached to federal stimulus money.
Gov. Rick Perry has indicated that he is considering rejecting the stimulus funding for unemployment insurance because that would necessitate changes in the eligibility requirements for unemployment insurance, allowing more people to qualify.
Since Perry suspended the unemployment replenishment tax, the unemployment insurance fund is essentially broke. Although he reinstated the tax in January, the funds will be insufficient to cover the over $400 million shortfall.
Perhaps The Dallas Morning News should wake up to the fact that Texas needs the stimulus money, strings and all.

Re: "Big on What, Not How -- Obama speaks convincingly but skirts debt relief," Thursday Editorials.
Even though the editorial board does not agree with many facets of President Barack Obama's stimulus plan, they also give the president credit for his leadership.
As is pointed out, the stimulus bill has passed, and now it is only common sense to give it a chance and see how it works, rather than throwing up all kinds of roadblocks, being indignant and insisting it is all against GOP ideology.
Instead, we need more of the kind of thinking these editorials have presented. I hope this will enable us to get through these serious economic problems facing our country today.

Now that Texas is slated to receive roughly $17 billion in stimulus -- a large portion of which is destined to be applied toward road infrastructure -- do we still require a foreign company to own and operate toll roads? Or is the concept of forcing taxpayers to pay twice for roads the status quo in Austin?

Re: ".'We will rebuild, we will recover' -- Obama says economic woes must be met head-on -- He talks up programs, urges lawmakers to do 'whatever proves necessary,'." and "GOP: Obama plan is irresponsible -- Louisiana's governor says rely more on tax cuts, less on spending," Wednesday news stories.
President Barack Obama offered us hope that recovery is possible, but Gov. Bobby Jindal offered us dreams of a world where government is the enemy and where the last eight years didn't happen.
The choice for Republicans is clear: either continue to live the dream or give their best efforts to restore hope.

Pledge comes to pass
I distinctly recall candidate Barack Obama pledging to raise taxes on individuals earning more than $250,000 a year.
I have waited patiently for that pledge to change from taxing individuals to the reality of taxing families earning more than $250,000 a year. That day has finally come.
Nice try, Mr. President. A lot of us saw that one coming a long time ago.

Some firms need to fail
President Barack Obama approved a $787 billion stimulus bill to spend money to save people who didn't make the profits they expected and failed to adjust accordingly.
Survival of the fittest says that some of these banks and car companies, etc., need to go away. Mr. President, let nature take its course and don't throw money at your weed-infested gardens -- turn them over and invest in newer, greener ones.
And if you can't get the metaphor, then we're all in big trouble.

Re: "Sullenberger fears decline in pilots -- Captain says cost-cutting is hurting talent and air safety," Wednesday Business.
While I truly respect Capt. Chesley B. "Sully" Sullenberger III's heroism and skill in landing his plane in the Hudson River, I respectfully disagree that reduced compensation has placed pilots and their families in an untenable financial situation.
If companies are going out of business and people are losing their jobs, I don't think there will be much need for people to buy airline tickets. This reminds me of the banking and brokerage industries saying they need to give bonuses to keep star talent.
I am sure there are a lot of extremely qualified unemployed people who would jump at the opportunity to take lower pay and no bonus just to get health insurance benefits. It is refreshing to see that people are cooking at home, taking old shoes to cobblers and clothes to tailors and seamstresses.
Our lives of excess are coming to an end. Let's start living within our means and appreciating what we do have.

Our president stresses new jobs, which is good. Why not protect the jobs of so many autoworkers and do something to stop the layoffs in this industry? My suggestion is to give a rebate on every vehicle manufactured in the U.S. to the purchaser.
If something is not done to help GM, Ford and Chrysler other than loans, it is a matter of time until Hyundai of Korea or Toyota, Honda and Nissan of Japan will own these American companies. It is a competitive market and all of these companies, both American and foreign, make good-quality automobiles.

Re: "Government bailouts are undermining capitalism -- Obama's team could be bringing end to American dream, says Star Parker," Tuesday Viewpoints.
Parker's column considerably misses the mark. Aggressively self-centered and self-serving top-level executives in various parts of American business, seeking first as much money for themselves as they can get their hands on, are undermining capitalism -- not governmental efforts to save them and our capitalist system from their arrogant greed.

Here is a plan to save the automakers that uses private financing and has minimal cost for the government:

• The federal government could buy 1 million electric cars from Ford, GM and Chrysler at average price of $20,000 each.


• The government would pay transportation costs to dealers.


• Dealers would sell the cars at average price of $26,000 each.


• Dealers would reimburse government the $20,000 per car and the transportation cost.


• Automakers must raise private funds to get themselves to point of electric car delivery.


• Buyers of electric cars would get substantial tax incentives.

Re: "Obama digs at Perry's stimulus stance -- He tells city leaders that resistance means states could lose out," Saturday news story.
Hats off to Gov. Rick Perry for not being taken in by the Obama/Pelosi bait-and-switch tactic. The strings attached to the Democrats' spending bill are designed to force states to make bad decisions on Medicaid and unemployment that our state would be stuck with in two years when the federal money runs out.

This new stimulus package is nothing but a welfare giveaway. I have lived in my house since 1988. There have been many times that we had to do without essentials just to pay our mortgage. There were times that we paid it late, but it got paid. Since we are not behind on our payments, no one is going to give us some of the pork being served up to so many other people.
If President Barack Obama wants to really help Americans like our family, then call it even when I file income tax for the next five years. Give me back the money I have lost in my 401(k) and stop penalizing me when I have to dip into my retirement fund.

Scary fast is more like it
Re: "Going too fast on stimulus? Next week's deadline for $2.3 billion in road funds raises red flags in Austin," Friday news story.
You also could have added "scary" to "too fast" in the headline, which would have been more appropriate on Friday, Feb. 13, when over 200 Democrats in the House, and all the Democrats and three Republicans in the Senate voted for the almost $1 trillion stimulus bill without even reading what was in the hundreds of pages in the final bill.

Re: "$75 billion housing plan offers a lifeline -- Obama seeks to reduce mortgages for millions of at-risk homeowners," Thursday news story.
Your article depicts a typical family that needs help to avoid foreclosure. The family purchased a home a few years ago for $250,000, with a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. The home has now decreased in value from the original purchase price of $250,000 to about $212,000.
Why is this family entitled to a government- sponsored refinance bailout? They have a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. Their monthly payments, including escrow, will probably decrease due to a lower appraised value of the home.
Why would they now be faced with foreclosure? Practically everything we purchase decreases in value. Why should a house be guaranteed to increase in value? I'm not in real estate; I'm just a working stiff with a mortgage that I agreed to pay when I signed the contract.
A government-assisted refinance program for this homebuyer is nothing more than an insurance policy for real estate speculators. It's obvious that the Washington real estate lobbyists refinanced their new homes with a new four-year Democratic mortgage.

Pet Democratic projects approved
Well, put the flags at half-staff. The stimulus bill was shamefully passed, and now we've mortgaged our grandchildren to pay for a bunch of pet projects for which Democrats have been salivating for decades. Now in control of the House of Representatives and the Senate, the kids are in charge of the day care.
Sadly, there is little in this bill to actually create real, long-term, private-sector employment.

Do the right thing, Texas ...
Re: "Perry: Texas will use stimulus funds -- He formally accepts $17 billion share, reiterates concerns," Thursday news story.
No matter what your personal feelings are about the passage of the stimulus package, Texas senators, house members and our governor can't lose.
They'll be able to take the moral high ground, rallying their base with cries of waste, pork, earmarks and fiscal irresponsibility -- knowing with absolute certainty that, in the end, Texas will gladly take and spend all of the $15 billion set aside for our state.
The citizens of Texas will get the money, and the politicians will cash in by doing the right thing and voting against the bill. It's a win-win for the Texas delegation, and smoke-and-mirrors politics in Texas as usual.

... or can't they see it?
Thankfully, now we hear that Gov. Rick Perry will reluctantly accept the billions allocated for Texas.
The two senators from Texas and our governor worked to defeat the plan. Are they so wedded to the tired ideology that created this mess that they can no longer see the forest for the trees? Or was Perry angry because the plan allocates so much money for education?
This from a governor who presides over some of the lowest education funding in the nation. Or did the bill just not have enough tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires -- the only constituents our leaders seem to believe they represent.

Please tell me how it will help
Please explain to this ordinary gal how the economic stimulus is going to help, when I just received notification from my credit card company that, beginning March 1, if I am late with a payment, my interest rate can go up to 29.9 percent. If I want to refuse these terms, I can, but my card will be canceled.
What a setup for failure and drowning in debt? Until there is some regulation of these bandit practices, all the taxpayer money in the world isn't going to help Main Street Americans keep their heads above water.

Re: "Iceberg, right ahead -- We can't wait to deal with the $56 trillion in looming national debt, says William McKenzie," Tuesday Viewpoints.
Was McKenzie aware of debt icebergs when former President George W. Bush's foolish tax cuts doubled the national debt, while he started two wars?
For McKenzie to act as if the new president is ignoring the looming deficit is disingenuous. Does McKenzie believe we should deal with entitlement programs before we get the banking system back into operation?
McKenzie talks like President Barack Obama is dawdling. A little more humility on the part of Republicans, especially Christian Republicans, would seem warranted.
If McKenzie needs something to write about, why not explain why former Vice President Dick Cheney now seeks time with the press to pour out his negative views, when he shunned the press like the plague (or treated them with contempt) when he held power.

Re: "I do want to know what she's wearing -- Michelle Obama has substance and style; we should acknowledge both, says Jeanne McManus," Saturday Viewpoints.
Record foreclosure numbers. High unemployment. People committing suicide because they see no way out. People having to choose between medicine and food. Scammers taking advantage of the misfortune of others, sending them even deeper into despair.
Food pantries are running out of food because of low donations. People can barely afford to feed themselves, let alone strangers. Elderly people are dying in their homes when electric companies shut off the electricity because of nonpayment.
The list goes on.
What Michelle Obama is wearing is about as important to me as what Paris Hilton thinks is "hot."
I don't care.

Thank you, Texas.
Thanks for being a well-run, responsible state. States like my native California can count on you for bailing us out of our spending problems.
California had boom years and overspent.
Now we are $50 billion in the red, and going down fast. We are relying on you to help us out. A new spending bill will enable us to avoid those hard choices and we can continue to overpay our employees and live high.
We can go back to watching the sunsets and enjoying our glasses of wine.
Thanks again, Texas.

Re: "Talking Points," last Sunday Points.
My congressman, U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions, wishes to emulate the Taliban rather than help put the country back together that his ilk ran into a ditch over the past eight years. He bemoans what he calls the classic liberal doctrine of "tax and spend," but what is the GOP doctrine? Cut taxes and spend?
If only we had half the money Republicans squandered in the past decade we would not have such a bitter pill to swallow today.

Several family, friends and I have all received letters recently from credit card companies stating they are increasing our interest rates from 6 percent to 9 percent higher. All of us have good or excellent credit ratings. When I called Capital One and Chase to question this increase, they stated that the increases are due to uncertain economic times and that millions of people have received these notices.
So not only are we paying for this bailout with our tax dollars, but we are also rewarded with higher interest rates? Seems to me we are paying for this bailout twice.
These credit changes just demonstrate greed on behalf of the creditors and will stifle the economy, not stimulate it.

Re: "Budget gap hits more than $58M -- Property values' dip may worsen shortfall; tax increase possible," and "$2 trillion question -- Revised bank bailout unveiled; Senate OKs stimulus Discussions to reconcile bills on fast track," Wednesday news stories.
In the new stimulus package, singles will receive a $500 tax credit and couples will receive a $1,000. My understanding of this is that we will have extra money to buy goods to stimulate the economy.
Right below this article was a report on how our property tax is going up to help cover Dallas County's budget shortfall. It looks like to me that we will just be handing the stimulus money back to the government. I've got a plan for Dallas County: Do what your citizens have been doing for the last year and do without.

Re: "Finding a better answer," by Buddy Byrd, Wednesday Letters.
Byrd contended that a "liberal majority in Congress did the spending the last few years, not the Republicans."
If by "liberal majority" he meant Democrats, he must have missed the fact that the Republicans controlled Congress from 1995 until 2007.
The deficit was lower for 2007 and for 2008 after five years of record deficits. When the Democrats controlled Congress the deficits were lower while Republicans generated record deficits.
Now, any deficit is bad, but if you want to see a balanced budget, I guess you'll have to look back to the Clinton administration.

Re: "$2 trillion question -- Revised bank bailout unveiled; Senate OKs stimulus -- Discussions to reconcile bills on fast track," Wednesday news story.
I am totally amazed. Our congressmen have done this in one week. They have spent less time on this thing that will have such an enormous impact on our future than most people spend on creating a budget for their much smaller companies.
What manner of person can devise such an ingenuous plan in so short a time? The ones in charge of Social Security, Medicare and prescription programs -- the ones who led us to this precipice in the first place. Buckle up.

Let's talk to our bankers
After the Senate and House send the economic stimulus package to the White House for President Barack Obama's signature, don't forget to forward it to China, Russia, Japan and our grandchildren for their approval on financing the debt.

Don't forget: It's our money
The stimulus/bailout program further proves that our country is being run by naive lawmakers who think that sprinkling soiled ground with money will cause pots of gold to sprout, thus curing our ailments.
Instead, this country should be run by businessmen who know how to manage our resources. People in office have forgotten that it is our money they are giving to these companies. These companies put themselves in dire straits due to their conscious choices. It is not our responsibility to bail out poor businessmen, but apparently it is the responsibility of our politicians to be incompetent.

Employment is Job 1
The main problem facing all of us today is unemployment.
People without jobs can't buy houses, cars, borrow money, purchase consumer goods, services or pay income tax. People out of work also create a huge liability for the government while they are collecting unemployment benefits.
We cannot have consumer confidence if U.S. citizens aren't working or think they could lose their job anytime.
Instead of trying to spend our way out of this recession, the government should create tax incentives for businesses to hire employees.
If everyone is working, our capitalistic system will take care of itself.

Sales reps are glad to see you
There aren't many positive things to glean from our current economic state of affairs. It's a pretty sorry mess all the way around, but remarkably, customer service, with the emphasis on service, has arisen from the ashes of this recession to once again be something more than an advertising gimmick.
Suddenly clerks, salespeople and service reps act like they are genuinely happy for your business.
Shop employees actually smile and say thank you for shopping with us -- and actually seem to mean it.
This is quite a reversal from treatment received in better times where customers were often treated as an afterthought.
I sincerely hope this aspect of our bad times manages to stick around when things improve, because it really is nice to be treated like a human being instead of just another credit card to be swiped.

If senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn continue to vote against every opportunity they have to avoid a depression, they'd better fire up their ovens and start baking bread. The lines are forming.

Re: "Bipartisanship? Obama needs to stop talk of doom and gloom, says Mark Davis," Wednesday Viewpoints.
How can Davis even begin to state that Ronald Reagan took over an economy in worse shape than today?
Yes, the economy was a mess in 1980 with high interest rates, unemployment and growing inflation. I remember buying a car with a 17 percent interest rate in 1981.
Today we have established banking institutions failing, and those that survived are not lending.
Housing and auto markets are collapsing, foreclosure rates continue to rise with no real bottom in sight and we have record levels of unemployment.
Unfortunately, Davis cannot objectively look at today's problems and realize that they need today's solutions, not yesterday's.

Re: "Bipartisanship? Obama needs to stop talk of doom and gloom, says Mark Davis," Wednesday Viewpoints.
Davis' comment that to fix the sagging economy we need to cut taxes, loosen regulatory shackles and create an environment where entrepeneurs are energized by presidential encouragement got my dander up.
Is that not the very thing we did for the last eight years? He and his ilk really don't get it, do they? There is a new sheriff in town. It is President Barack Obama's time, and all the revisionist history that Davis will, no doubt, create shall not diminish the fact that the American people have spoken.
They have rejected the Mark Davises of the world, along with their failed trickle-down theories. Live with it.

Normally I would never comment on an advertisement in The Dallas Morning News. But Monday's newspaper included a full-page ad from the Cato Institute asking President Barack Obama not to get the government involved in the economic crisis in our country.
I found it interesting that it was signed by scores of economics professors from colleges and universities across America. They had one thing in common: They were employed.
Ask a group of laid-off workers who are trying to hold on to their homes, pay for heath insurance for their families and send their kids to the very colleges and universities where these professors work what they think about Obama's plan, and you'll get a totally different answer.

No problem is so bad that Congress can't find a way to make it worse: We have a financial problem caused by excessive borrowing to spend on things we can't afford. So Congress comes up with the solution -- borrow more.
The inevitable result will be out-of-control inflation that will confiscate the savings of the prudent to protect the profligate.

Jobless glimpse in poor taste ...
Re: "My version of '25 Random Things' -- Dawn McMullan offers a quick glimpse into the world of upper-middle-class unemployment," Friday Viewpoints.
I don't know if I was supposed to laugh with, identify with, sympathize with or even find interesting McMullan's list of how tough it is to be upper-middle-class and out of work.
I don't begrudge anyone being upper-middle-class or even rich, but please don't expect me to fall down laughing at a whiny, unfunny attempt to enlighten those less financially fortunate about how tough they (the former haves) have it.
This piece was in poor taste -- yours and McMullan's.

... but here's idea in good taste
Ms. McMullen, there is a simple solution to several of your problems. You can start a family vegetable garden. It will cut down your family's Whole Foods grocery bill, and you can be the epitome of organic.
What a tiny carbon footprint your peppers will have. You can bring the salad to friend's dinner parties. Your husband will have something to do (out of the house) for an hour every day, and it will provide a satisfying return on his time investment.
Best of all, no one has ever said that you have to wait for war or famine or depression to start a vegetable garden. It's fun.

Re: "Entitled to Much Less -- The ground is shifting beneath Daschle and his ilk," Thursday Editorials.I don't know why anyone is surprised that banking executives continue to pay themselves outrageous bonuses while their banks are losing money, laying off workers and they have their hand out to the government.
At the same time, I don't see Congress denying themselves their usual pay hikes or cutting back on the perks they receive while the rest of us are losing our jobs, our health insurance and our houses.
There is no mystery here. Those in power make the rules for the rest of us. The first rule in a crisis is always take care of your own.

Shift strategy
I think Congress and President Barack Obama ought to back a plan to give every taxpayer a $6,000 tax rebate card.
This card would be like a normal gift certificate. You can't deposit it in a bank; you would be forced to spend it. I think that this would stimulate the economy, and it's a good idea to give the people the money versus sending it to institutions.

Immigrants will help recovery
If the stimulus package included an amendment providing a road to citizenship for our newest immigrants, it would help jump-start the economy. Imagine all those consumers with jobs, new Social Security numbers, credit worthiness, no debt and eager to buy houses, furniture and new cars to put in their garages.

What happened to the idea that a bonus is given as either a reward for exceptionally good job performance or as a way to share some of the profits with employees when a company has had a good year? Such a policy worked well in the past. It encouraged employees to do a good job and management to run the company in a responsible fashion. How have we gone from this to a system that rewards failure, sometimes at taxpayers' expense?
Apologists claim financial institutions must pay big bonuses to attract and keep talented staff and management. Fine. Let them find talented individuals who can manage to run these institutions without wrecking the economy of the entire world, and they can have their bonuses from their profits.
In the meantime, the message from taxpayers to companies receiving bailout funds should be: "You get to keep your job. That's your bonus."

Re: "Easing education budgets," by Eddie Bernice Johnson, Monday Letters.Where did our country go wrong? Johnson believes that borrowing and spending $79 billion dollars is a good thing. Everyone wants a better future for our children, but how is enslaving them to this kind of debt going to provide them a better future?
I don't want to single out Johnson, because I am sure her heart is in the right place and she is only echoing the message of her fellow politicians. But the thinking of our leaders has got to change.
Would any of them personally get a loan from the Chinese and use their home as collateral? Is what they want to spend it on so urgent and important that they are willing to mortgage the future?

Re: "Stuck in the muck -- House plan helps big government more than economy, says Jeb Hensarling," Monday Viewpoints.
Hensarling's smug piety about President Barack Obama's stimulus package will increase the debt burden on our children is maddening considering the mess that the Republican Party have gotten us into.
The American people have understood that it was Republican spending policies that got us where we are, and it's time for so-called young Republicans like Hensarling to get the message.
Hensarling's criticisms are merely a reflection of Republican trickle-down economics (previously known as supply-side during the Reagan Administration), and these policies were overwhelmingly rejected by the election of Obama. Now it's time for Hensarling and other Republicans to get on board.

Re: "Stuck in the muck -- More tax cuts, less spending is a broken GOP refrain, says Eugene Robinson," Monday Viewpoints.
I agree that the huge government spending during the past few years contributed greatly to the current economic crisis. But Robinson is wrong that higher government spending now is going to solve the problem.
Government spending, regardless of which side of the aisle it comes from, is inefficient and most often ineffective. Taxes weaken the taxpayer, and strong taxpayers, not a big government, make a strong country. Taxpayers can manage their money much better than politicians can manage it for them.