 |
|
|||||
|
Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor
To The Editor: The President [Barack Obama] is using the last $100 billion from the $700 billion bailout for banks to continue to loan money to them, and he desires an option for another $250 billion. The optional $250 billion should not be approved and the $100 billion in loans should have significant restrictions. The president instituted a $75 billion program to allow troubled homeowners to refinance their mortgages. They are mostly mortgages approved by conspiring banks for low-income people with poor credit ratings, which were instituted under the Clinton Administration and continued in the Bush Administration. After providing $17 billion in loans to the automobile industry the incompetent auto executives are back for another $20 billion, but thankfully the Administration is placing restrictions on future loans. The auto CEOs have annual compensation packages worth tens of millions of dollars. The average hourly pay of the unionized workers, including hourly rate and all the extravagant fringe benefits is approximately $75 per hour, compared to $45 per hour for non-union workers at foreign manufacturers with plants in the U.S. The U.S. auto industry has to reorganize, manufacture small, fuel efficient vehicles and cut the salaries of executives and get the pay of hourly workers close to $45 per hour. However, the government should not be running any private corporations, and should not be firing employees of these companies. Despite the dire and gloomy economic predictions of Barack Obama and some of his staff from November 2008 through February 2009, the incompetence of the Detroit auto industry and the greed of Wall Street, AIG and various large banks across the country, we will overcome the financial difficulties and prevail as a country because of the hard work, tenacity, stamina and wisdom of the American people, but we have to stop bailing out banks, the AIGs and the auto industry. Donald A. Moskowitz Londonderry, New Hampshire Unions Can Save Jobs To The Editor: Another 7,000 jobs may be cut after Mayor [Michael] Bloomberg ordered budget cuts totaling $350 million. Now Governor [David] Paterson told department heads to make plans for 8,900 layoffs, effective July 1. Both the governor and the mayor say the unions can prevent job cuts if they only make concessions. The unions refused to do so and called it a failed strategy by the city and state to balance the budget at the expense of union workers. Well I find this a shame the unions don't want to play ball to save jobs. We are in a serious recession and we all need to make sacrifices, for we are all in this together. What the union leadership fails to realize is that with layoffs that means less union dues to collect. That could mean less perks for these fat cats to enjoy. Well these people ought wake up and smell the coffee. Hard working men and women are at risk of losing their jobs. Sincerely Yours, Frederick R. Bedell Jr. Glen Oaks Village Ratepayers Soaked To The Editor: On Friday April 3, 2009, the NYC water board continued their annual ritual of treating the NYC water ratepayers as a cash cow that just keeps on giving. Their proposal to raise the NYC water rates comes on the heels of their rate increases of 14 percent in 2008 and 12 percent in 2007, which translates into a combined increase over 3 years of over 45 percent. While these increases are a sin against our city's middle class and speak to a disconnect between this mayoral administration and the struggles ordinary New Yorkers are going through, there is a larger sin that continues to remain under the radar. Every year, as part of a bum lease that originated with the creation of the water board, the mayor can opt to take more than is required to pay off the pre-1985 debt service that the water board had accrued. This residual payment will amount in fiscal year 2010 to over $123 million that our mayor will funnel into the city's general fund to pay for non-water related services. The residual payment remains only under the option of the mayor and our water board as per the language of this lease, leaving the NYC Council without the ability to rectify the situation. Since the middle of this decade, Mayor Bloomberg has opted to take this residual payment instead of finding new revenue sources and sparing the water ratepayers of NYC. While the middle class of our city struggles with layoffs and tightening their belts, our mayor continues to go back to the well and soak our hardworking citizenry. While this practice remains particularly egregious, the soaking of NYC water ratepayers goes further. Funds from water rate collection go to reimburse other city agencies like the fire department for inspecting fire hydrants ($5 million), $30 million to the department of sanitation for street sweeping and $3+ million for other city services, all with tenuous relationships to actual benefits to our water supply. Every year our elected officials, including NYC Councilmember James Gennaro, stand up against these regressive taxes against the water ratepayers. Last year, 41 councilmembers stood with him to say in one voice that this practice was not sustainable and asking our mayor to opt not to take the residual payment; this would have reduced the increase to a mere 3%. The Long Island City Alliance understands that the city faces large deficits and tough choices in this year's budget, but placing a large regressive tax on the hardworking middle class is not the way to close the gap. Other options that our mayor seems to be resisting, like taxing those making over $250,000, need to be looked at as we collectively need to tighten our belts. We implore Mayor Bloomberg to spare the hardworking water ratepayers of NYC from our annual unnecessary soaking. Brian Beard , Dan Jacoby, Costa Constantinides, Steven Beard, Georgina Young-Ellis Executive Board Long Island City Alliance Fed Reserve Is Not Federal To The Editor: Unrealized by most Americans, the Federal Reserve Banks are private banks, they are not part of the government. At three times in our history, Congress was convinced by bankers that they could control the economy better than the Treasury Dep[artmen]t. In 1789 [Alexander] Hamilton started a central banking system, but [President] James Madison did not renew its charter and it was discontinued in 1811. Then Madison changed his mind and reinstated the central banking system in 1816. In 1836 [President Andrew] Jackson saw the central banks as a threat to our freedom and said, "They think they will kill me but I will kill them first" and he dissolved the banks' control of our country. In 1913 [President] Woodrow Wilson in return for the bankers' support in getting him elected paid them back by passing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and it's still in force today. It is not generally known, as it is kept very secret as to who owns the Fed. The original bankers that started it in 1913 were J.P. Morgan, Paul Warburg, and John D Rockefeller. You will never see their heirs' names in the list of the richest men in the world as their wealth is a secret. They are not required to pay taxes, so there is no income tax return to examine. Congressman Ron Paul recently introduced a bill in the House of Representatives that the Fed should at least be audited. Their promise was that they would control inflation and stabilize banks by the extraordinary powers granted to them by Congress. Since 1913 they have done neither. They get money by printing it from paper (Federal Reserve notes) that are backed by debt. Ask yourself how they can lend banks money at 1 percent and not go broke: well, it's easy when you are printing the money. But how do they make money for themselves besides printing it when they feel like? Well, they lend money that they print to the federal Government (you) for interest, and that becomes the national debt, (about $13 trillion). The more the government needs money, the better it is for the Fed. Wars, and especially, long wars are good, recessions are good for them. Does their influence affect those things? But you thought that the Treasury could print money if the government needed it and not have a national debt!!! Well President [John] Kennedy thought so and he had the Treasury print millions of silver certificates but he got a hole in his head and all those silver certificates were quickly taken out of circulation. The Federal Reserve Act and the income tax came at about the same time and that's no accident. Your income tax goes directly into the pockets of the owners of the Fed to pay off the interest that you (we) the government owes them. Repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and get rid of the income tax and the evil influence of the Fed on governmental policy. [International Banker] Rothschild once said "Let me control the Nation's money and I care not who makes the Laws". |
      |
||||
