Bipartisan debt
Your Dec. 9 editorial “The deal breakers” spoke volumes — not with what was said but with what was not said:
* You didn’t say the impact of these credits and spending on deficit and national debt, some $900 billion, according to your own estimates.
* You didn’t mention that one of the takeaways of the recent election is to cut spending and reduce national debt, exactly opposite of what this deal does. It seems like the Republicans, the Democrats and you all have forgotten the election results.
* You didn’t say that this deal appears clueless as a roadmap to long-term financial integrity of the federal budget.
* You didn’t mention the impact of a 2-percentage-point reduction in payroll taxes on the Social Security fund. This deal probably accelerated the bankruptcy date of Social Security.
* But most of all you didn’t praise that Washington can find bipartisanship — at least when it comes to racking up deficit and national debt at the cost of future generations.
— Ravi Chandran, Bolingbrook
Obama compromise
Thanks for the editorial blasting liberals for being unhappy with Obama-Republican compromise. You had a good point: The 1 percent of the population affected by the proposed hike receives a 13 percent benefit of the total $900 billion package.
What is wrong with the liberals anyway?
— Paul Mercer, Huntley
Gains for wealthy
The Democrats did not lose the last election. The United States did! Republican lies won it. Not once did the GOP compromise with the Dems. All we heard was their desire to make Barack Obama a one-term president.
And now they have used the middle class as a hostage to give the wealthy — which obviously includes the Tribune’s editorial board — their pound of flesh.
Moreover, your statement that the payroll tax cut will provide more money mainly to the middle class is bogus. The wealthy will also gain, only much more. You state that the tax saved by the wealthy will provide jobs. It hasn’t happened up to now, nor will it.
Before the election I thought the Trib was more even-handed, but since then, you’ve reverted to your pro-Republican attitude.
Bah humbug!
— William Levin, Downers Grove
Oil alternative
The Chicago Tribune Dec. 9 editorial mischaracterizes the role that ethanol plays in reducing our dependence on foreign oil, creating jobs here in the U.S., improving our environment and strengthening our national security. For four decades our nation has suffered the economic and environmental consequences of our addiction to foreign oil.
It is time to move forward.
Ethanol is the only available, affordable alternative to oil today.
Research published in Yale University’s Journal of Industrial Ecology shows that ethanol can reduce GHG emissions by as much as 59 percent relative to gasoline. And the industry supports more than 400,000 jobs in the U.S. that can’t be outsourced.
Contrary to what the Tribune may want us to believe, removing the ethanol import tariff will do nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
All it will do is replace domestically produced ethanol and eliminate U.S. jobs. It would essentially replace our nation’s addiction to foreign oil with a dependence on foreign ethanol — and that is not in the best interests of our nation.
At a time when our country needs it most, we must invest in smart energy policies to ensure the expanded production and use of homegrown, renewable ethanol to set our nation on the path toward a cleaner, prosperous and more secure future.
— Tom Buis, CEO of Growth Energy, Washington
Tribune columnist Steve Chapman underestimates the full potential impact of a nuclear Iran, with long-range missiles supplied by North Korea, on regional and world security (“Attack Iran? Haven’t we learned? There are better ways to counter Iranian nukes,” Commentary, Dec. 2). Following Tehran’s refusal to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions over the past several years, the U.S., European Union, Japan, Australia and South Korea in recent months implemented stronger economic sanctions in a peaceful effort to dissuade Iran from its quest for nuclear weapons.
Even if it doesn’t use the weapons, a nuclear Iran would embolden the Islamist regime to influence Arab states across the Gulf, as well as Iranian proxies, such as the terrorist organizations Hezbollah and Hamas. A nuclear Iran could further increase the oppression of women and minorities with impunity. Some may delight in postulating about a military option against Iran. But it is clear that effective economic and political sanctions could make that proposition irrelevant.
— Lawrence M. Adelman, president, American Jewish Committee Chicago
Not for sissies
The person who coined the phrase “the golden years,” referring to old age, never reached them.
— George Hoeksema, South Holland
Groupon example
Congratulations to Groupon CEO Andrew Mason regarding his decision not to sell his company (“The smart decision? Groupon spurning Google may not be about money,” News, Dec. 7).
By today’s standards he should get the National Humanitarian Award for these reasons:
He decided to keep his company intact.
He ignored the temptation to take the money and retire at 30 years of age.
He kept his workforce in place, which will help our economy.
— Joseph Nitti, Huntley
School choice
This is in response to “Candidates’ school choice an issue again; Emanuel won’t say yet if his kids would go to CPS” (News, Dec. 8).
I do not believe that you can rate the school system off of whether or not a candidate’s children graduate from the Chicago Public Schools.
Although I agree 100 percent that the quality of the system can, and must be, upgraded, you must realize that private schools are a matter of personal opinion.
Some parents, who may share the same view as some of these candidates, simply send their children to private schools because the of teacher-to-student ratio, religious benefits and other perks that come along with paying tuition for private education.
There are parents from areas with wonderful public schools who still opt to pay tuition at a private school.
— Vincent McCann, Chicago
