Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
Congressional hopefuls
have big shoes to fill
It’s hard to imagine life without Anna Eshoo having our backs in Silicon Valley and Washington, D.C. She has been a huge climate/environmental warrior.
Candidates, all 11 of you, you have big shoes to fill. There is a ton of work to be done, and we are running out of time. How quickly can you accomplish Eshoo’s vision like swift action and support for legislation such as putting a price on carbon (and on polluters) with the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, which needs to pass ASAP if we are to meet emissions reduction goals for 2030. And the cash dividend it generates goes directly into American families’ pockets. Let’s not forget her environmental accomplishments.
It takes more than a village to save the planet.
Jenn Bulka
Redwood City
Continuing support
for Trump is baffling
Re: “Trump is dangerous choice for GOP” (Page A6, Jan. 17).
Regarding Thomas Sutton’s letter on Donald Trump being a dangerous choice for the GOP, this seems to be, unfortunately, the new norm that we are living in.
Kamala Harris recently stated that she is “scared as heck” that Trump may win. It baffles me why women in rural America still support Trump when they know that, among other things, their choice in reproductive rights will be curtailed. World leaders have said that electing Trump will be a “step back.”
It seems that people don’t care as long as they get their tax cuts and free rein to own guns.
Prakash Narayan
Fremont
Presidents should not
be allowed to wage war
President Biden calls democracy issue one. Yet his unauthorized bombing of Yemen — like his Red Sea battle and bombings of Iraq, Syria and Somalia — typifies tyranny. Who says? Biden himself.
On Jan. 8, 1991, at a hearing over Bush senior’s impending Iraq attack, then-Sen. Biden, Senate Foreign Relations chairman, called one-man war decisions “tyranny” that led to the American Revolution. The Constitution empowered Congress alone to decide to wage war, he pointed out.
President Trump too exceeded his authority. On his own, he waged battles in Asia and Africa, ordered indiscriminate air raids, committed drone assassinations and renounced arms treaties.
Citizens, challenge the candidates: “Without congressional approval, would you order more battles or bombings? Would you use a nuclear weapon?”
Congress: You have the constitutional power. Since Truman’s Korean conflict, presidential war-making has killed millions. End it.
Jeannette Hassberg, Paul W. Lovinger and Grace Teresi
War and Law League
San Francisco
Capping overdraft
fees will prove costly
Re: “Overdraft fees could drop as low as $3 under new proposal” (Page C9, Jan. 18).
What a terrific idea. Put a price cap on overdraft fees.
Like any other price ceiling, this will have the following consequences: First, there will be more bounced checks. Would you rather pay an overdraft fee or have to deal with a check returned for insufficient funds? Second, there will be more people who become unbanked. Banks will start closing accounts for excessive bounced checks. Third, banks will become more stringent about who they accept as customers. They are not required to open a checking account for just anyone who walks in the door.
These are just off the top of my head using standard economic analysis. I’m sure there are many more unintended consequences.
Tony Lima
Los Altos
Amendment can fix
Citizens United damage
The 14th anniversary of the disastrous and unpopular Citizens United Supreme Court decision was Sunday. But it’s been 138 years since the theft of constitutional rights began right here with a minor tax case by the oligarchic Southern Pacific Railroad (aka “The Octopus”).
So for more than 100 years, Supreme Court rulings have expanded the definition of free speech to include virtually unlimited secret corporate spending on political speech, i.e. campaigning, often resulting in an overwhelming flood of negative ads that further degrade our faith. Total election spending was $14.4 billion in 2020, up from $5.3 billion in 2008, according to Open Secrets.
What can you do? Support the We the People Amendment (HJR 54) and AB 83, the Get Foreign Money Out of California Election Act.
Patrick McKercher
San Jose
Trump’s immunity
claim is abhorrent
Former President Donald Trump argues that the president must have total immunity while in office and be protected from prosecution for all actions taken.
Related Articles
Letters: Solano County | Support in losses | Ridiculous notion | Tempering majority | Low bar | Third-party spoiler
Letters: Fund Ceasefire | Violence prevention | Constituents’ concerns | RCV in Antioch | 14th Amendment
Letters: Skirting rule | Gaza violence | Federal pressure | Southern misinformation | Reverse ruling
Letters: Worsening division | Development opposed | Equity’s guarantee | Decline recall | War zone deaths | Economic barometer
Letters: Electing officials | Insurer inspections | Walters’ grievances | Iowa Caucus | History of lies | Not about security
If that is proven correct, then we should look at Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un as having those same protections from the world court, for example. Therefore, they cannot be held accountable, nor be condemned as they were acting as leaders and permitted to act and do as they so desire.
This is such a fallacious argument and its presentation as acceptable is abhorrent to our standards of morality. Former President Trump had civil immunity while in office. If he stayed within the law, he was protected. Outside the law, he becomes like any man, subject to the laws we all follow, without exception.
Mark Grzan
Morgan Hill
