READERS WRITE

Bailouts cost enormous amounts

First there was Bear Stearns. This week, the federal government “takes over” (actually, bails out) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Current discussion involves a bailout of GM, Ford and Chrysler, while other troubled industries line up to get in on the act. These bailouts cost enormous amounts, as figures like $10 billion or $50 billion are discussed.

So long as tax increases are not discussed, why worry? Because these enormous amounts add to the federal debt, which is already at a perilously high level, and the federal debt, like all debt, must eventually be paid. If it is not paid with higher taxes, this debt will be paid by runaway inflation (the “cruelest tax”) and/or a depression like the 1930s.

Remember, the only way government can give money to those who do not earn it is by taking it away from those who do.

BILL FOKES, Braselton

Feasibility study first step before road work

Regarding the Mike King column (“Whitlock debate hits hot buttons,” @issue, Sept. 6): I proposed a solution to the Whitlock Avenue traffic problem several years ago.

I stated the most accommodating, suitable solution may be to trench the length of Whitlock Avenue from Burnt Hickory Road to the I-20 connector, going beneath Powder Springs Street.

The trench could consist of two reversible traffic lanes, wide and deep enough for heavy trucks and daily commuter traffic. Little if any extra right of way would be required and the surface level of the avenue would later appear untouched. The topography appears ideal for such a solution.

Cut-and-cover construction is widely accepted and used successfully around the country. The cost could be offset by a nominal user toll, which could also pay for normal operation, maintenance and repair. A feasibility study is the logical first step.

DON CASE, Mableton

Where is our humanity for beggars?

I am appalled by the shockingly inhumane timbre of the article “City urges tough love for beggars” (Metro, Sept. 7). Homeless people are people. When we fail to consider their humanity, no wonder we spend money not on ending their plight but on their removal as common pests or vermin.

I cannot comprehend why we would dedicate funds to educate the public about resisting the natural instinct to alleviate the suffering —- even in a small way —- of the most destitute.

Our dollars would be better spent on programs for job training, education, counseling, substance abuse treatment, safe houses for teens and women, and educating the public about the more pernicious, institutional causes of homelessness. It does not benefit anyone when fellow humans wander the streets with no place to rest, eat, bathe or relieve themselves. Let us first ponder how we can improve their condition, lest we lose our humanity [in] likening them to pigeons who shouldn’t be encouraged.

TAHAREE JACKSON, Decatur

At its best, Catholicism is about inclusion

In her column “Some Catholics misspeak core belief” (Living, Sept. 6), Lorraine V. Murray reduces a 2,000-year religious tradition to the litmus test of abortion and applies the old canard of “cafeteria Catholic” to all who have nuanced views on what she calls this “non-negotiable” belief. The only non-negotiable moral belief a Catholic or other Christian has been given is to love God and one’s neighbor as oneself.

Children don’t understand nuance and hence are urged to obey. Adults have to figure out in practice how to live a moral life. To do this, a Catholic takes seriously the teaching function of the church in helping form a profound conscience. One continues to think, evaluate, listen, pray, and then takes responsibility for one’s conscience and actions.

Catholicism at its best is not about exclusion, but inclusion. “Big-tent” Catholicism is the only apt image for a global institution with millions of adherents and two millennia of history.

DANA GREENE, Atlanta

Recommendations don’t go far enough

Thank you for publishing U.S. Reps. Jim Marshall’s and Roscoe Bartlett’s plan for energy independence (“Clean future should be the goal,” @issue, Sept. 7). There are aspects to their approach for funding the production of fossil fuel alternatives that I really like. But their recommendations do not go nearly far enough.

Their idea to incorporate a windfall profits tax into future oil and gas leases is a great way to fund energy alternatives. Also, jumpstarting their program by issuing bonds leveraged on future oil and gas tax revenues may be good policy.

However, their plan ignores current leases and focuses instead on a small number of new leases that would be made available by lifting current drilling bans. If all existing oil and gas leases were redrawn, it would generate much more money and negate the need to drill in ANWR and offshore sites.

DON McADAM, Atlanta

Listen to what Gwinnett’s residents want

I agree with Rick Badie (“Stadium costs rise in tight times,” @issue, Sept. 6). My husband and I felt that the good old boys pushed the Gwinnett stadium through just a little too quickly.

We, too, were upset that in this hard economic time, they automatically agreed to spend another $19 million. It is our tax dollars they spend, yet we have no say. Like Badie and many other Gwinnett homeowners, we’re putting off major spending that can wait.

Will the average family be able to attend games here? I see more cost overruns in the future, and the price of tickets possibly more than I care to pay. I only hope this stadium will be the success they predict and taxpayers won’t be asked (told) to pay more taxes to bail out this structure.

County commissioners need to listen to what the residents want or they will see families move out, making Gwinnett a less-desirable place to live and raise children.

CAROLYN COOK, Lawrenceville