Letters to the editor

Editor,

I emphatically concur with Ms. Weiss’ recent guest perspective on the "free-rider society” and the rise of a culture of economic entitlement that has metastasized throughout our body politic ("The health care debate” in the Sept. 8 edition of the Daily Journal). Ever since the mid 1960s, this country has been addicted to an ever increasing menu of welfare state offerings, with the public’s appetites for government services, programs and handouts becoming ever more insatiable with each passing year. The government penalizes the productive and enables the indolent in the name of "compassion.” I commend Ms. Weiss for having the courage to express such a conservative common sense truth in an area utterly marinated in the senselessness of high-octane liberalism.

Jim Cullison

San Mateo

Barbarism in perspective

Editor,

While reading Alice Weiss’ guest perspective in the Sept. 9 Daily Journal, an interesting exercise occurred to me. Those of you who, like me, keep your old newspapers in a recycling bin, run and get that one. I’ll wait. Got it? OK now, read through Ms. Weiss’ piece again, but every time she says "health care” substitute the phrase "police and fire protection.” For those of you who don’t have access to that issue, I’ll give you a sample of how it will read. "[At a] town hall meeting that U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo, held in Montara . . . [s]everal attendees spoke of their personal police and fire protection troubles and their situations were sympathetic. But 99 percent of [them] expected that someone else should pay for their police and fire protection.” Take the exercise a step further. Imagine that, God forbid, your house burns down. The police determine that the cause is arson. Then imagine that, after all that, you receive a bill at whatever relative’s house or shelter in which you are staying, for your police and fire services. Hope you took Ms. Weiss’ advice and "scrape[d] together a personal savings” account, perhaps "cutting [some] expenses” like doing without cable TV and a cell phone. Laughable, right? Laughable because it is unimaginably barbaric, and no nation that subjected its citizens to this would ever be able to call itself a civilized society.

Michael T. Kirstein

San Mateo

Correcting a false Measure U statement

Editor,

The integrity of my position on Measure U was questioned, as it relates to my voting record, in a recent letter by Andy Klein:

"Grocott refers to the sales tax as a ‘Band-Aid’ and says we would be better served by tackling the issue of rising employee costs. It should be noted that every labor contract that has gone before the City Council during Grocott’s two terms in office have been approved unanimously. Where was this sentiment during those negotiations and votes?” ("A taxing problem” letters to the editor in the Sept. 9 edition of the Daily Journal).

Regarding votes, I recall pulling an employee contract from the consent calendar to vote "no” because I did not agree with what was decided by council in closed session. The contract, I believe, was with the Police Officers’ Association. Additionally, while not a labor contract, I voted "no” to increase Parviz Mohktari’s retainer for his last six months as city engineer/public works director.

To the question of sentiment, it’s been in closed session, where negotiations for labor and management contracts take place. Regrettably, the strong stances I have taken in those meetings, to hold the line on employee costs, are not recorded. But I have taken strong positions and the cuts that have been achieved are mostly due to compromises from the positions I have taken.

Truly, I am surprised that my reputation as a fiscal conservative has been questioned. I thought, if nothing else, I have been consistent over the years in this particular area.

Matt Grocott

San Carlos

The letter writer is a member of the San Carlos City Council.

Public option a bad deal

Editor,

Isn’t it ironic that the very same private health insurers being demonized by this administration currently provide a very generous cafeteria of medical plans (with no pre-existing conditions) to Congress and some 8.5 million federal employees, who are also eligible for dental, vision, life insurance, flexible spending accounts and long-term care? (www.opm.gov). Our taxdollars pay two-thirds of the premiums for Congress. No wonder lawmakers exempted themselves from the "wonderful” public option they want to foist on us!

Meanwhile the rest of us, mostly satisfied with our current insurance (and wanting to keep our doctors), will be incrementally forced into a government-rationed plan. The President says you "can keep what you have,” but we all know that employers — to save money — will understandably offload their private insurance, pushing employees into the public option. Medicare as we know it will disappear because reimbursements to doctors/hospitals will be cut by $600 billion, causing even more doctors to refuse Medicare patients.

Surely, if we just slow down, with enough time and constructive debate, we can provide coverage for those who need it. Short of offering them the private plans that Congress and federal employees have, we could (1) Ease qualifications for Medicaid, expanding the current safety net; (2) Allow people to buy insurance at competitive prices across state borders; (3) Provide tax credits/medical savings accounts for high-deductible catastrophic insurance; and (4) Create special clinics (like those in Wisconsin) that offer quality care through doctor collaboration and with cost saving measures.

Expenses can be reined in by relaxing state mandates on what companies must insure, instituting tort reform and making drug companies/hospitals keep their promises to save billions. Better still, we could use the 90 percent unspent stimulus funds to reduce health care costs.

Medicare and Social Security are going broke. Wouldn’t it be unique if our lawmakers actually saved these programs from bankruptcy — rather than creating yet another unfunded, unsustainable entitlement by borrowing trillions more from China or printing more money?

Sandra Hodges

San Mateo