MAILBAG:Wealthy shouldn’t ignore capitalism’s inequities

HOW TO GET PUBLISHED

Mail to the Daily Pilot, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626. Send a fax to (714) 966-4667 or e-mail us at dailypilot@latimes.com. All correspondence must include full name, hometown and phone number (for verification purposes). The Pilot reserves the right to edit all submissions for clarity and length.

I was taken aback to see the Pilot give Jim Righeimer a pass to raise the specter of class warfare, not in the op-ed section, but right there on page one (“Let’s look at the Peters and Pauls,” June 23).

As an economist, it was made more distressful by his lack of economic rigor.

By way of example:

Righeimer asserts the Haves in society work harder, are more productive, and create opportunities for the Have-nots. This veiled rendition of “trickle-down” economics may not withstand the Paris Hilton test.

Take the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, which were supposed to trickle down to the middle and lower income levels. It hasn’t happened. The rich are getting richer, the poor poorer, and the middles are running in place.

I am a capitalist, but I don’t believe we should be blind to its inequities. I also believe the beneficiaries of capitalism’s largesse should be more accountable.

Two sidebars: 1) Nostalgic Righeimer asserts there was a time when the Haves (Peters in his parlance) outnumbered the Have-nots (Pauls), but I cannot find a single era in recorded human history when this was true; 2) He also pooh-poohs the notion that “people are dying in the streets from lack of health care.”

Apparently, he missed the recent story of a woman writhing in pain for 45 minutes before her death on the floor of the emergency room at an L.A. hospital.

Let’s have more facts and fewer assertions.

BOB SCHMIDT

Peters in Congress want to give Pauls money

Jim Righeimer does a great job to clarify the major distinction between Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats simply want to redistribute wealth and believe the average person doesn’t know what is good for him and the populace needs the government to be in charge of everything.

If you don’t think the Peters in Congress are trying to give your money to the Pauls, just take a look at what the Democrats are already trying to pull off in the form of higher taxes.

TERRY JOHNSTON

Initiative’s intent has no legal significance

Regarding Ron Hendrickson’s rebuttal of June 24 to my “Gross Deception” letter of June 20 describing Mr. Ficker’s city hall initiative it is the disconnect between the “intent” of the initiative and the initiative itself that constitutes gross deception. The intent, echoed by the petition gatherers, proposes a reasonable-sounding city hall-in-the-park compromise but has no legal significance whatever.

The initiative itself makes no mention of a park and Section 7 should really make people sit upright. In simple terms, there would be no city controls over building height or footprint or view plane or anything else. And when the true costs of excavation, earth removal, and water control are known, any city hall plan will have to morph into something above-ground and of undetermined height. It is inconceivable that Mr. Ficker and his supporters do not know this.

Hendrickson says we have only a 4-3 council decision in favor of the park. He forgets that the council has voted against a city hall on Newport Center Park three times out of three.

TOM MOULSON