Don't blame government for the loss of jobs

Re: Declining labor force.

Job loss is not being caused by the government. It is caused by marketers who have elected to procure their products from other countries to achieve lower selling prices and enhance markup.

A substantial amount of U.S. production capability is diminishing and will not be available in the future if this effort continues.

It's what investors asked for

Recent stories, state and national, are bemoaning the failure of the current economic recovery, and the president's administration, to produce higher rates of employment.

Regardless of the latest story, whether reporting stronger manufacturing numbers, lower interest rates or higher prices for equities, the reporter or anchorman will add a footnote in obligatory dour tones that the latest news was not accompanied by improved economic figures. I wait in vain for an explanation other than the well-worn lament that it's all a result of the President's tax cuts.

Here's my take on it: For the past 20 years or more, the world's largest organizations, whether government or business, public or private, have invested untold capital in processes and systems that optimize the capabilities of the institution, using equal or fewer resources. As this revolution spread across the globe - and as its costs shrank - smaller and smaller organizations could take advantage of the leverage available through technology. These remarkable advances permit all of us to experience greater access to information, as well as greater ease and agility in responding to the unexpected. Information system technology has even reached the hidebound world of newspaper publishing.

For several years, investors have looked to America's companies and demanded that the leadership accomplish more with fewer resources, whether in the form of capital, time or human resources. Now that companies are actually doing it, the Chicken Littles of the our society are waiting for the sky to fall.

A better way to use the money

If the money that went to the president's tax cuts and rebates had been used instead to repair the infrastructure (roads, bridges, water and sewer facilities) of the states, cities and municipalities, it could have made for new jobs and helped the economy.

Taxes down, bills up

Re: Tax cut is good for America, letter, Sept. 6.

This letter claims that President Bush's tax-cut plan "sets out to create prosperity for all Americans." My thoughts immediately turned to what I could do with my newfound prosperity. After all, as an average middle-class taxpayer without high dividends and not in the upper tax brackets, my federal income taxes are going down $106.

Well, first, I'll give St. Petersburg more than half of it due to increased water rates. The rest of it, plus more, will go to the telephone company, thanks to Jeb Bush. And as the Bush budget deficit continues to rise (due, in part, to the $200,000-plus tax cuts to the Cheneys of America), we can expect to see the increases in local fees and rates continue, which will turn my newfound prosperity into an even greater newfound deficit.

No thanks to the president

Re: Tax cut is good for America, letter.

The letter writer says we should thank President Bush for the tax cuts.

I have a question: What are taxes for? I believe taxes are collected for running the country.

Another question: What sense does it make to reduce taxes, borrow the money to run the country and expand an already out-of-hand deficit?

The letter writer says President Ronald Reagan and his tax policies set in motion one of the greatest peacetime economic expansions in U.S. history. More likely, he handed over one of the biggest deficits in U.S. history, which was increased by the first President Bush, though he did eventually realize taxes had to be raised, even after his pre-election promise, "Read my lips, no new taxes."

Thank President Bush? I'll thank him to leave office so we can get the United States back on track and try to repair the damage he has done to the United States, to Iraq, the economy, the environment and our foreign policy, not to mention what he wants to do to destroy Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Postal proposals will hurt service

Re: Thinking outside the post-office box, Sept. 4.

The author's conclusion that the U.S. Postal Service will only get better by accepting the recommendations of the President's Commission on the United States Postal Service certainly misses the mark.

If enacted into law, the commission's proposals will have devastating effects on small businesses as well as inner-city and rural communities, drastically reducing the level of service the American public has come to expect from the U.S. Postal Service.

A chief concern is the commission's recommendation that President Bush appoint a new special panel empowered to choose which postal facilities close and which stay open. This process will no longer require open hearings allowing residents, community leaders and legislators to provide local input. The panel's decision to close listed facilities will be final. Congress must then accept or reject the entire list. It appears that the commission's proposal is designed to stifle the objections of affected workers, citizens and elected officials.

There are other concerns:

The commission states that it wants to make the U.S. Postal Service economically viable. Yet the recommendations favor expanding discounts for the mailing industry through work performed at pre-sort houses. Current postal employees can perform this work with greater efficiency, and more economically than can ever be recouped from these discounts.

The commission states that it wants to maintain universal service throughout the United States, yet its recommendations will give hand-picked political appointees, who will sit on a new Regulatory Board, the power to "review and refine" the scope of universal service.

The commission states that it wants to improve the collective bargaining process with the unions that represent postal employees, yet the recommendations will actually destroy the current method - which has worked for more than 30 years without disruption of service - and replace it with a recipe for failure.

The commission states that it wants to save postal funds by adjusting employee compensation and benefits to bring them in line with comparable private-sector jobs, yet the recommendations also call for "uncapping" the salaries for postal executives, to bring them up to snuff with the CEO packages of the top Fortune 500 companies. Just what the country needs, the instant creation of a few politically appointed multimillionaire CEOs, at the expense of more than half a million middle-class employees.

Fortunately, the commission's recommendations cannot be implemented without the consent of Congress. It is up to the general public to realize the turmoil and confusion that the commission's report will cause. Our legislators must be informed that there is no need to accept the presidential commission's recommendations to disrupt our nation's communication/information infrastructure, known as the U.S. Postal Service.

Too much is left to the judges

The Founding Fathers could not have possibly envisioned the U.S. judicial system as it stands today. Clearly the idea of the judicial branch of government has fallen victim to the law of unintended consequences. In today's world, unelected officials of the government create law through interpretation every day. The most contentious issues facing our country (abortion, affirmative action, state's rights) have not been decided by the majority of the people, or by Congress, but rather by unelected judges with a whole lot of latitude for interpretation.

Polling shows that a majority of people may have a different view of our country than the courts. But the courts are only doing their job, right? Just the way they did when they ruled that slavery was legal in 1857 (Dred Scott). Fortunately the right thing happened in the aftermath of Dred Scott and the Constitution was amended to make sure that slavery was appropriately outlawed. Unfortunately the right thing is not happening today. Congress doesn't seem interested in changing the Constitution but would rather allow judges to interpret and society to stew.

Nominees to federal judgeships are highly debated in the Senate and very qualified individuals are rejected purely on the basis of ideology. It's time for Congress to follow the process outlined in our Constitution instead of leaving decisions to judges.

Where is the concern for clean air?

I believe the revised air-pollution rule enacted by President Bush's Environmental Protection Agency is going to wipe out years of hard work by countless individuals and groups trying to ensure that the air we breathe is, in fact, breathable. A law called "New Source Review," which called for upgrading older and obsolete power plants built before 1970, and which would have ensured that plant emissions were kept to the highest standard possible, has been simply thrown out. How can this action be justified?

It would seem that it is very reasonable to ask the power moguls to invest in the upkeep of their plants. They are, after all, responsible for the quality of the air we breathe, at least to a considerable degree. And they do make a profit from the service (energy) they provide. So why did the Bush administration make this lousy and irresponsible change?

What about the legitimate science behind the standards that were proposed, standards hammered out over many years to keep serious pollutants at manageable levels? Doesn't this administration care about the health and well-being of all Americans? Or does it only answer to the influence of well-heeled corporate interests?

Job switch raises ethics questions

Re: EPA chiefs take jobs with firms who benefit from changed rules, Sept. 4.

Given that former EPA officials John Pemberton and Ed Krenik, who were both involved in easing the air pollution rule for older power plants, have now taken private-sector jobs with firms that benefit from these changes, how can we be sure that their guidance and influence on this decision was not purchased by the firms that now employ them, and that the decision to relax air pollution requirements was made wisely?

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce deals with extremely complex energy issues that are neither black nor white, but the fact that these two men were immediately employed by firms that benefitted from this decision raises serious ethical questions that I think the committee now needs to address to the public.

Share your opinions

We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to 727 893-8675 or by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com (no attachments, please).

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times 490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 Contact the Times | Privacy Policy Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright