Letters from our readers: As businesses struggle, board turns a blind eye 

In response to your April 23 story “Healthy SF fees set to increase,” it’s unbelievable that at a time of unemployment above 10 percent and many businesses struggling to keep their doors open, the Board of Supervisors shot down the $2,000 tax credit for those businesses participating in the Healthy San Francisco program.

When a business has to close down or move out of San Francisco, the result is more unemployment and a shrinking tax base resulting in fewer city services (Muni, parks, street repairs, etc.) for residents. But that logical reality seems to be lost on a Board of Stupidvisors that views employers and job creators as “the enemy.”

E.F. Sullivan, San Francisco


Fixing financial industry

The April 21 letter about the current recession and financial regulation missed the main point. The financial meltdown was caused by lenders ignoring basic lending parameters (requirement of a reasonable minimum down payment, scrutiny of a borrower’s ability to repay, verification of income, credit score, etc.). The flaky mortgage-backed security instruments were all outgrowths of that. True financial reform will occur only when common-sense standards of borrowing and investment are established and enforced. Realistic oversight of fraud and the securities market can then be applied.

Phil Page, San Francisco


Can we trust reform bill?

Goldman Sachs gave $1 million to candidate Obama and now that he is president, he wants to attack them. I thought an honest politician was one who stays bought. But now we must carefully examine this Wall Street reform bill to see what might be in it for Goldman Sachs. We know that our senators pass bills without reading them, so how can we trust them to protect our interests?

James Keefer, San Francisco


Editorial skews the facts

I take issue with your April 20 editorial, “To President Clinton, criticism is terrorism.” We all know that words can lead even whole nations to acts of unspeakable violence. When Clinton points out that current overheated rhetoric can lead to such acts as the Oklahoma City bombings, he is simply stating a truth and not equating criticism with terrorism.

Your editorial then stated that if Clinton believes the words of tea party activists will inspire acts of terrorism, it is only logical to conclude that he and the Democrats would endorse official suppression of such speech. Not only did the president not say that, but your conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Brian Connors, San Francisco

Pin It
Favorite

Speaking of Opinion

Latest in Letters to the Editor

© 2018 The San Francisco Examiner

Website powered by Foundation