Letters to the Editor

Posted: October 25, 2012

The right choice for America

If lowering taxes and increasing defense spending were such a great idea, 2008 should have been a boom year rather than a near-depression. Now it's 2012, and Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are trying to sell us a slightly tweaked version of the same approach. They have a plan for America that increases defense spending and focuses on lower tax rates and fewer regulations for corporations and the so-called job creators. They are trying to persuade us that the rest of us will benefit.

President Obama and Vice President Biden have demonstrated that they put the American people first. They want to create an environment in which both private- and public-sector jobs flourish, yet the business community is held accountable to the people. They understand the positive role that government can have in creating a fairer society, with greater opportunity, for all.

While they realize the need to make government more efficient, they also know that we need to generate revenue by asking the rich to pay more in taxes so that we can continue important programs that help millions of Americans live their lives with dignity, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, health care, public education, and student loan support.

Obama and Biden are the right choice for America.

Barbara A. Kelly, M.D., Fort Washington

Equally absurd comments

The editorial "No president can dictate the market price of oil" (Friday) correctly chided Mitt Romney for stating that $4-per-gallon gas was primarily due to President Obama's energy policy. Yet I was disappointed The Inquirer failed to mention the president's equally absurd response, that the surge in gas prices was due to our robust economic growth. Say what?

We don't need to read your editorials to know that "self-serving politicians keep distorting the facts." But some of us wish you would be a bit more balanced in your own fact-checking.

Jim Lundberg, Newtown

Binder full of information

The Inquirer is correct in reminding Mitt Romney, who is running as a businessman, that a president cannot control the price of oil. Perhaps someone should give him a binder with the names of OPEC experts.

I. Milton Karabell, Philadelphia

Complexity of the oil industry

It's true that "No president can dictate the market price of oil," but the Obama administration's polices that restrict the future supply of domestically produced crude oil will ultimately drive up refined product prices and make matters worse for consumers.

Your editorial reports that U.S. refineries "are raking in the cash." You cite refiner HollyFrontier Corp.'s second-quarter 2012 net income growth of 149 percent (compared with the second quarter of 2011) as evidence. You conclude that "politicians shouldn't use that complexity to try to snooker voters."

That 2012 growth was primarily due to HollyFrontier's third-quarter 2011 merger with Frontier Oil, which substantially increased refinery capacity, production, and utilization, resulting in a similar increase in net income and revenue in subsequent quarters. You were comparing apples with oranges.

Sam Ricks, Philadelphia

Free enterprise and morality

Any implication that President Obama is against free enterprise is simply wrong ("Making a moral case for capitalism," Sunday). The president often cites the fact that both of his grandparents rose in the middle class by showing initiative, drive, and commitment - tenets of free enterprise.

I would like to hear what Arthur C. Brooks thinks of a man who takes the tens of millions of dollars that our great country has empowered him to make and stashes it offshore. Why didn't CEO Romney put those massive earnings back into U.S. businesses to create jobs? The offshore loophole may be legal, but it raises the question: Is it patriotic? And I'll take it one step further: Is it moral?

Marianne Pontillo, Philadelphia

Name-calling is not a strategy

I shake my head with disbelief at reading that President Obama is now making fun of his opponent's name, coining the term "Romnesia." As for Vice President Biden's buffoonish performance at his debate? Unspeakable.

With a four-year record of failures and bankruptcies, and lacking any viable program for the next four years, the president wants so desperately to win reelection that he resorts to name-calling? Those of us who have lived through several presidential campaigns may recall 1992, when George H.W. Bush, lacking an effective campaign strategy, resorted to similar name-calling. And how did that work out for him?

Charles Slater, Haverford

The fault is not in the left

While I may agree with the vast majority of Robert W. Patterson's message, I fear he may demonize the left too much ("Saving the safety net from the left," Sunday). Yes, in this election, the left has used this tactic. If that be the case, then we, the opposition, must better articulate our message without also resorting to demonization. If we fail then, to paraphrase Shakespeare, The fault is not in the left, but in ourselves, that we may lose the election.

Ben LaGarde, Glenmoore

The conservative New Deal?

My FDR-hating grandfather would have fallen out of his chair if he had been alive to read Robert W. Patterson's reference to "conservative New Deal principles." Apparently, Patterson thinks conservative is just a synonym for "stuff I like."

Robert Pollack, Philadelphia

Reason for being undecided

Perhaps if there were not multiple Mitt Romneys, there might not be so many undecideds. Flip-flopping and lack of substance do create these issues.

Bob Brennan, Broomall

Lessen confusion on voter ID

With all the confusion about the status of the voter-ID requirement, The Inquirer could provide a real service to the community by having a front-page headline the day before the election: No photo ID needed to vote.

Laslo Boyd, Philadelphia

comments powered by Disqus
|
|
|
|
|