No relief for those who lose homes

The news story “Bailout focus shifts to consumer relief” (Page One, Nov. 13) points to a need for clarification of thought regarding American economics and the policies of leaders on Wall Street and in Washington, D.C.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson praised guidelines that make sure the bailout results in increased lending while he rejected tapping the bailout fund to provide partial guarantees to financial institutions for mortgages they agree to rework. Evidently, despite the story’s headline, there will be no relief to people who are now losing their homes.

Later in the day, news reports told of a quarter-trillion-dollar budget deficit in one month, and of a half-million new applications for unemployment. Many more people who will probably lose their homes. Despite this news, the Dow closed up about 550 points.

How have we come to a time when political and financial leaders have no concern for the well-being of most of the American people? Who first decided to refer to us as “consumers,” rather than as the citizens with rights spoken of in our “we the people …” document? And as corporations and companies continue to lay off people, who do they think will purchase the goods and services they offer, pay the taxes that governments depend upon, and take advantage of the increased lending that the bailout makes available?

PAT WILSON, Marietta

Providing money is a way to offend

The idea of providing money to the automakers to shore up their leaky business is positively offensive. All they want to do is protect jobs that do nothing to improve the quality of their products. The airline industry has endured a few decades of restructuring and bankruptcies. Thousands of airline workers have lost jobs or had to make changes in their lives.

The automobile business needs to reorganize in a similar fashion without taxpayer assistance. It will either survive or go out of business. I know the idea of government bailouts was not taught in business schools. It is time for management to show us what they are really made of.

GARY FEILMEIER, Dacula

Use oil companies’ fat profits to invest in auto industry

While oil companies made record profits from our gas-guzzling cars and skyrocketing prices, the car industry is sputtering. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have the oil companies pay for the car manufacturers’ bailout? The American people already paid for it at the gas pump.

Instead of giving huge bonuses and incentives to oil executives who basically do nothing, use a substantial portion of that profit margin to invest in the auto industry. After all, without the auto industry, the oil industry would be superfluous.

TRACEY BRABANT, Roswell

Here’s a simple message to mayor: Raise taxes or cut spending

Message to Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin [regarding the city’s fiscal problem and request for federal aid]:

1) raise taxes, or 2) cut spending.

It is really that easy. Don’t expect the residents of, say, Montana, to give you their money.

MARK HANLEY, Milton

More thoughts on Electoral College

The writer of the letter “Electoral College ensures all votes count” (@issue, Nov. 13) must be a Republican or not know how the Electoral College really works in Georgia. Suppose you are a Democrat and 49.9 percent of the voters cast a ballot for the Democratic candidate for president while 50.1 percent cast a ballot for the Republican candidate. Since winner-take-all is the system here, all of Georgia’s electoral votes would go to the Republican candidate. This would mean that the votes of 49.9 percent of Georgia voters would not count. Surely, the only way the Electoral College system could be fair would be for the electoral votes to be prorated so that, in the case above, 49.9 percent (or seven) electoral votes should be given the Democratic candidate and eight electoral votes should be given the Republican candidate.

ALLEGRA ANDERSON, Stone Mountain

Obama’s role is not to ‘rule’

In a recent interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Valerie Jarrett, co-chair of the Obama transition team, said that “Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one.” Did I hear her correctly: Barack Obama is going to take power and rule us? Excuse me, but tyrants and despots like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro take power and rule. Under the U.S. Constitution, the power in our country is shared by three branches of government, and the role of the president is to lead and ensure that the Constitution is protected, not to take power and rule. Obama scares the daylights out of me, and he hasn’t even been sworn in yet.

JIM CHAMBERS, Tucker