Letters: Climate disarray | Mental health calls | Capital gains tax | Establishing fairness | Hurdles to success | Good and bad
Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
California climate plansare in conflicted disarray
California climate solutions are in a conflicted disarray. We’re told that wind would replace solar at night but as meteorology records show the wind doesn’t always blow at night. So we’ll still need natural gas generation at night. But Democrats want to shut down fracking in California, which would shift our natural gas generation needs to other states for a net-zero impact on emissions. The capper is the elimination of natural gas, which is the only backup source of energy and heat for homes in a blackout.
Meanwhile, solutions like Bloom Energy’s emission-less process of generating electricity from natural gas were ruled against by the City of Santa Clara. Inexplicably there’s almost no mention of the hydrogen/solar cycle that can inexpensively solve the nighttime electrical storage problem. It’s almost as if some prefer the issue to a solution.
Ed KahlWoodside
New methods neededfor mental health calls
This past year has shed light on how law enforcement untrained in mental health has caused misfortune and maltreatment of people, specifically people of color. There need to be more programs like CAHOOTS, which has trained mental health professionals who show up to crisis situations before law enforcement is called to the scene.
CAHOOTS is designed to have mental health professionalsde-escalate a situation alongside an EMT who are there to provide first aid support for those who need it.
In 2018 one study estimated that about 20% to 50% fatal encounters with law enforcement involved people with mental health issues. In Eugene, Ore., however, out of 24,000 calls that CAHOOTS responded to, they only needed law enforcement about 150 times.
This program is something that needs to be implemented in each county in the state to be able to provide the support needed.
Gabriela LopezSan Jose
New approach neededfor capital gains tax
Reader Jeff Berger is exactly right: Capital gains taxes are keeping seniors from selling their houses and downsizing (“Capital gains tax hike threatens equity,” Page A12, May 2). He’s also right that tax laws don’t recognize that inflation has eaten away at the supposed “gains”–and that’s not limited to houses. If I bought a stock 10 years ago for $1,000 and sell it today for $2,000, I’m taxed on the $1,000 “gain,” even though the actual increase in value is considerably less due to inflation.
So, first, all capital gains taxes should be indexed for inflation. Second, if I sell a stock, I can keep the cash, but if I sell a house, I still need someplace to live, and if the “gain,” and thus the tax, is high enough, I may not be able to afford even a smaller house, so I stay put. There needs to be some recognition that selling a house needs to be treated differently.
Merlin DorfmanSan Jose
Tax hike will helpestablish fairness
Recently two letters from seniors have been published decrying the unfair nature of a capital gains tax increase proposal that would impact the amount of profit (aka equity) they’d realize from the sale of their homes.
Those gentlemen, and I too, have been the beneficiaries of tax policies that have favored homeowners at the expense of everyone else in California for decades. Their focus on their equity comes at the expense of equity for all in terms of fairness. We are not treating all Californians fairly with a tax policy that benefits only those with enough wealth to be able to invest in property.
Fairness (aka equity) demands that we recognize that everyone needs to pay their fair share of the burden of having a civil, prosperous society. We have become a nation obsessed with our rights and what we’re owed. We also need to acknowledge our responsibilities.
Eugene ElySan Jose
Time to remove hurdlesto chipmakers’ success
The editorial “Nation should rethink strategy on chip making” (Page A12, May 2) understates the extent of the manufacturing disadvantage facing U.S. companies. The writers think that Biden “gets it.”
Thirty years ago, Jerry Sanders, AMD founder and CEO, speaking for the American Association of Semiconductor Manufacturers, implored the government for regulation and tax policy assistance against aggressive foreign trade policy and subsidies.
Failure to respond has cost America leadership in semiconductors as well as loss of the solar panel industry. Noncompetitive labor costs, socially motivated tax disincentives, restrictive regulation and Marshall Plan era trade policies assure that American industry will continue its slide to second-class performance. Now, the Motley Fool is probably right to suggest that Intel has already lost the process race.
Subsidizing capital-intensive foundries and lithographic processing equipment might be a short-term solution to the chip shortage, but insufficient to recover American leadership.
Fred GutmannCupertino
Good and bad in Biden’sspeech to Congress
President Biden’s speech at the joint session of Congress harkened back to the Democratic Party of the mid-20th century for good and not so good.
The good: Biden strongly condemned austerity in favor of Keynesian policies as well as a resounding endorsement of unions. Most importantly, these talking points were backed with policy examples such as the PRO Act and the American Jobs Plan.
The not-so-good: Biden used Cold War-era rhetoric against China at a time when hate crimes against Asian-Americans are at an all-time high. While criticizing the Chinese government is not the same as being racist toward Asian-Americans and Biden’s rhetoric seemed to be more of a reason for endorsing progressive domestic economic policy, using this type of “us vs. them” talking point is socially irresponsible to an extent at a time like now.
Ajay MadalaMonte Sereno