Atlantans wonderful during a time of grief
My husband passed away recently, and my family traveled to Atlanta to bury him there. The evening before the service, we all went to dinner at a local Uncle Julio’s. The food and service were very good, but the considerate way the staff handled a problem needs to be commended.
My husband died on our grandson’s birthday. The birthday card for him and cards given to him and the other grandchildren were accidentally left by the children at the restaurant. When they realized that later, they were devastated.
We revisited the restaurant — only to find it had closed and the trash had been taken out. I offered to go through the trash to find these cards and the staff eventually joined us in our search. Much to my relief, the cards were found. The staff put them in a plastic bag, brought us towels to clean our hands and wished us well.
They will never know how much I appreciated their help. The staff at the local Hilton Suites were equally kind and caring to our family during our stay. Thank you, Atlanta. You were all wonderful.
Carol Malson, Branson, Mo.
We should not have hindered capitalism
Kyle Wingfield’s attempts to explain income inequality are really quite unnecessary (“Not only the rich got richer,” Opinion, Oct. 30).
Income equality is a natural result of free-market capitalism. What we need to recognize is that capitalism is quite capable of correcting this naturally occurring event. We call these corrections in income inequality “depressions.”
What Wingfield needs to focus on is the idea that the bailouts of 2008 were wrong because they interfered with free-market capitalism’s natural solution to the real problem: an overconcentration of resources. Through the bailouts, the United States government interfered with the natural progression of capitalism.
Every so often, capitalism reaches a point in the long-term business cycle where a wholesale destruction of assets must be imposed to clear the path to a burst of strong new economic activity. Now is such a time. What we are going through is to our long-term economic benefit. What we should have done in 2008 was to simply let capitalism be capitalism.
Erskine Hawkins Jr., Fayetteville
Retirees don’t need any risky business
The headline “Push for broader public plans” (Business, Oct. 30) sounds innocuous — and at first scan, it kind of makes you chuckle: The audacity of entrepreneurs and others to suggest that “pension plans’ restrictive policies ... starved the region of capital.” Then, I read the article in detail and became less amused.
A group of venture capitalists wants access to the state’s largest pension funds to make alternative investments. The key word is “alternative.” Just call them what they are: “risky.”
And this is all to be conducted in secret, by a group of individuals who historically want little or no government oversight of their activities. The plan doesn’t sound too good to be true. It simply doesn’t sound good. Retirees are watching.
Ronald D. Johnson, Austell
Tax plan deserves attention, not aversion
Congratulations on your courage in using the forbidden “F-word” (fair tax), and for giving a brief, but reasonable, outline of its provisions in your summary of tax plans in “Lots of tax plans, but no clear solutions” (News, Oct. 30).
There appears to be a code of silence regarding discussion of this (the simplest and fairest proposal yet) in the media and among politicians — probably because it would so drastically reduce the power of politicians, lobbyists and lawyers.
The main criticism cited is that enforcement would be a “nightmare.” Compared with enforcement of the present system, it would be a dream — and announcing its eventual implementation would absolutely create the greatest economic boom this country has ever seen, as the rich would rush to spend before it went into effect.
Liberals should love it as a form of redistribution of the wealth.
John Stanfield, Peachtree City
A modest proposal about profit sharing
Delta posted impressive profits for the third quarter. In keeping with the spirit of the current administration (and the “Occupiers”), I suggest that this carrier be required to share the profits equally with the airlines that didn’t do so well. F. M. Ashmore, McDonough
Actually, smokers love and hate ‘nanny state’
Kathleen Parker’s “Ad blows smoke in nanny state’s face” (Opinion, Nov. 2) notes that many blue-collared smokers hate “the nanny state.” However, I notice that these same smokers are happy to take advantage of the nanny state when it comes to paying their health care costs through Medicare.
It only seems to be the “nanny state” when regulations are calling for accountability of one’s behavior. When there’s a benefit involved, all of the sudden it’s “what is due to me?”
In addition to the smoker’s own health care costs, the taxpayer is also paying the health care costs of the nonsmokers damaged through secondhand smoke. Of course, no one can compensate nonsmokers for the permanent loss of their respiratory health because of exposure to secondhand smoke.
You insist on blowing smoke in my face? I’m happy to have the nanny state to help protect me from the dangers you impose on me.
Judith Smith, Atlanta
A main source of opposition to the Affordable Health Care Act is its mandate for all Americans to purchase health insurance. Many conservative commentators believe it to be unconstitutional.
Congress passed the Militia Act in 1792, mandating (among other things) that all white males of a certain age arm themselves. The Constitution had just been adopted — therefore, the public knew its “intent.” If this mandate was considered constitutional in 1792, why is the mandate to purchase health care unconstitutional now — if this is in the public interest?
The basis principle of any insurance is to spread the risk — and the larger the number, the more predictable the result. Pavittar Safir, Roswell
