Letters To The Editor

» 0 Comments | Post a Comment

Virginia Employees Are Getting Squeezed

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

Your recent article on the Mercer study of health care premium cost-shifting from employers to employees underscores the challenges facing Virginia's workers. According to our earlier report, "Feeling the Pinch: The State of Working Virginia," Virginia workers now pay the highest share in the country for individual health insurance -- an average of 24 percent of the premium.

Moreover, this shift is occurring among larger employers -- those with 100 or more employees -- with large risk pools, bringing them nearly equal to small employers with smaller risk pools for the first time in 11 years.

Further, employer-sponsored health insurance continues to decline in Virginia. According to the U.S. Census, Virginia workers receiving health care benefits through their employers dropped by nearly 5 percentage points from 2006 to 2007.

In addition, while nationally the number of uninsured has dipped, the number in Virginia has grown and now stands at more than 1.1 million. And as our national and state economies contract, and more workers lose their jobs -- and income and benefits -- all of these numbers will grow at exactly the same time that our policymakers try to balance the state budget by closing vital programs and services and leaving revenue loopholes wide open.

John McInerney, Health Policy Director,

The Commonwealth Institute for Fiscal Analysis.

Richmond.

The Government Owes Auto Makers a Bailout

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

A recent letter railed against a bailout for the auto industry and stated that GM had been helped enough. I disagree.

Our government has done nothing to protect one of our last fully American products. GM, Ford, and Chrysler have not been playing on a level field with the foreign competition. The American auto companies are all burdened by the costs of pensions, medical care for retirees, and so on. The foreign auto makers don't have these burdens that can add up to a few thousand dollars per vehicle.

There should have been tariffs on foreign automobiles all along. A government should protect its nation's own businesses. This government hasn't done that. I worked as a supervisor at a GM truck plant in Michigan for 30 years. It is true that at one time, the American auto industry produced less-than-stellar quality and was burdened by too many employees. I contracted, for several years, at different GM plants in various parts of the country after retiring in 1992 and can say that GM has made unbelievable progress in the quality of its product and in manpower reduction. I was proud of the product. It is world-class.

People ask why the Big Three kept producing large, expensive vehicles. They were the only vehicles that could turn enough of a profit to fund pensions.

It is time for our government to step up and do what needs to be done. Change managers if necessary. Lend them the money. Enact tariffs if that's what it takes, but do help one of the last American businesses through these abnormally tough times. They will come out on top again.

Thomas F. Neiger. Cobbs Creek.

Sad Turn Taken Was During the Clinton Era

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

I had to laugh at the letter from Suzanne J. Tarr, "We Took a Sad Turn Eight Years Ago." She stated, "Prior to George Bush taking office, we had a budget surplus." Sure, we had a surplus -- on paper. Perhaps Tarr isn't familiar with the term "deferred expenditures." President Bill Clinton balanced his budget, leaving a phony surplus, by simply passing on expenditures to his successor -- credit-card style.

Clinton's legacy includes the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiasco. Since 1999, a slowly ticking time bomb allowed previously unqualified mortgage loan applicants, including as many as 5 million illegal aliens, to list food stamps and unemployment compensation as legitimate income on subprime mortgage applications. Add in little or no down payment and where is there not the recipe for disaster?

Bush tried addressing the problem early in his administration, as did Sen. John McCain's legislative attempt in 2005. Their efforts were stymied by stonewalling Democrats who never seem to lose their passion for consistently dipping into the U.S. Treasury to buy themselves a constituency at everyone's expense.

Daniel L. Coli. Henrico.

Small Donations Are Pure Free Speech

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

Regarding the editorial, "R.I.P.": You fail to point out a clearly obvious distinction between huge sums of money donated by individuals $100 at a time (or less) and huge sums of money donated in the thousands of dollars by corporations, lobbyists, and nonprofits. In the latter case, there is a much clearer quid pro quo expectation (or at least its appearance). In the former case, who can expect that their $85 donation to Barack Obama's campaign is going to get them 15 minutes in the Oval Office?

These pages have often railed against finance reform as a stifling of free speech, yet these micro-contributions are free speech at its purest. The large-scale corporate contributions that reformers have targeted are on more an exchange for value than speech, and the frustrating thing is that you must recognize this difference as well -- you just choose to ignore it because it's the Democrat benefiting from the popular financial support.

Shannon Harter. Richmond.

Advertisement

 
View More: No tags are associated with this article
Not what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
 

Advertisement

Reader Reactions

Post a Comment(Requires free registration)

The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Online Features
Blogs
DataCenter
Videos
Weekend
 

Advertisement