What to do about North Korea; tax cuts or not; America’s future

Danger in the North

Re “Shellshocked by N. Korea,” Editorial, Nov. 24

By now we should not be shellshocked by North Korea’s reckless and murderous regime, which has launched erratic and dangerous attacks for decades.

Remember 1976, when Army Capt. Arthur Bonifas and Lt. Mark Barrett were trimming a tree along the demilitarized zone and were beaten to death by North Korean troops with axes and metal pipes?

The list of aggressions goes on and on.

Now is the time for the U.S., South Korea and other nations to send a real message and penalize North Korea.

Michael Perrault

Yucca Valley

I fully understand the horrors of resumed full-scale war in Korea, but I must disagree with your stance that continued diplomacy, even with Russia and China helping, will have any effect on the North Korean regime.

We have tried diplomacy and have given aid to no avail. North Korea’s belligerence continues to escalate. What’s next, a nuke landing on Seoul?

It is evident that the threat from the North will only end when the regime in the North is ended. End it now.

Jeff Lane

Idyllwild

Re “Nuclear blinders,” Opinion, Nov. 23

In his consternation over North Korea’s recent nuclear enrichment revelation, John R. Bolton cannot overcome the obvious impediment to implement his call that “serious efforts need to be made with China on reunifying the Korean peninsula”

The problem: Beijing has no interest in bringing the Kim regime down. It has demonstrated repeatedly its commitment to propping it up by failing to cut vital commerce.

Bolton should face the fact that North Korea is a nuclear-armed state and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Undermining Pyongyang best comes not from isolation enforced by sanctions but by opening it up to the world. The U.S. could start with diplomatic relations.

After all, it was not isolation that broke the Soviet Union and Mao’s China; it was engagement that highlighted the internal rot that contributed to change.

Bennett Ramberg

Los Angeles

The writer served in the State Department Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs in the George H.W. Bush administration.

Talking about tax cuts

Re “The two sides of the tax-cut coin,” Nov. 23

Rick Poore, a clothing manufacturer from Lincoln, Neb., supports tax increases for “top-level” taxpayers because at his $140,000 annual salary, his taxes won’t go up. The suggestion is that this is somehow an indictment of any purported consensus on opposition to tax increases among small-business owners.

Huh? Guess how Poore would react if this arbitrary bar were set at, say, $135,000. He’d be steaming mad.

The top 1% of taxpayers in 2008 accounted for 20% of adjusted gross income and more than 38% of total federal income tax revenue. The bottom 50% accounted for almost 13% of income but less than 3% of tax revenue.

So just who is paying more than his or her fair share? Who should be paying more?

Before you start supporting sticking it to the other guy, think about what happens when you become that other guy.

Michael Allegretti

Chatsworth

If the Bush-era tax breaks are allowed to expire, the top federal tax rate would rise from 35% to 39.6%. Opponents of this change worry that the increase will deter small-business owners from making job-creating investments.

Consider a business like the one in the story, with $12 million in revenue and 100 employees, whose owner earns more than $250,000 per year. If the owner made investments that increased the firm’s profit by $100,000, the tax on this gain would be $35,000 under the current tax rate and $39,600 under the increased rate, a difference of $4,600. The after-tax profits, by contrast, would be $60,400.

It is hard to predict the outcome of the proposed tax change, but the claim that this tax increase would deter business owners from making investments that yield much larger increases in profits stretches credulity.

Richard Worthington

Claremont

The writer chairs Pomona College’s Program in Public Policy Analysis.

America’s grimmer future

Re “Fed forecasts years of pain on job front,” Nov. 24

Your article didn’t even mention how many new jobs are dead-end, with no benefits and few opportunities for promotion. Entry-level jobs have disappeared overseas; with the GOP in control and Democrats running like scared rabbits, we’ll never get them back. Win-win solutions, like tax breaks for companies that hire at home, aren’t even being discussed.

Don’t blame the corporations or politicians for this debacle. Americans killed the American dream by falling for the malarkey du jour every election day instead of voting for their self-interest.

Barnum was so right.

Bonnie Sloane

Los Angeles

The Federal Reserve says that the average American worker, student and retiree better look forward to grayer times and that we’re likely to see more financially constricted times for a decade or more.

Meanwhile, corporations just posted record profits, giant banks are holding on to the huge reserves they’ve amassed thanks in large part to a public bailout, and the rich are likely to keep their large tax cuts given to them by the Bush administration.

It doesn’t take a Harvard graduate to see what’s going on here.

Matt Giorgi

Brea

The experts are telling us that the present economic problems stem from overspending without sufficient oversight and poor saving habits. They are also blaming the current sluggish recovery on the current practice of spending less and saving more.

How can we have it both ways?

I can remember my father frequently quoting the German philosopher Hegel, who said, “History teaches us that history teaches us nothing.”

Evelyn De Poister

Santa Monica

Left off the list

Re “They made our days,” Editorial, Nov. 25

Many have said that serving in the military is a thankless job, and The Times seems to agree.

In your Thanksgiving Day editorial, you completely neglected to thank the fine men and women of our military who are bravely serving us in Afghanistan and Iraq. California teachers were thanked, even though their jobs are not nearly as dangerous as our military.

Shame on you. You made room for a snipe at Meg Whitman but did not thank the armed services.

Mitchell Thomas

Burbank

In the years to come you will regret thanking President Obama for canceling NASA’s Constellation program.

This cancelation marks the beginning of the end of the United States’ human spaceflight program. Constellation was initiated in 2004 by President Bush as an element of the Vision for Space Exploration. In subsequent years he did not see fit to fund Constellation, gravely wounding the program. Obama put the final nails in the coffin.

The lights are going out on American human spaceflight.

George Paulikas

Palos Verdes Estates

Not DeLay

Re “Former GOP lawmaker DeLay convicted of money laundering,” Nov. 25

Can the Republicans hope to get a new standard-bearer, symbol and identity?

Perhaps there is a Republican out there with the surname “Progress.”

Joel Pelcyger

Los Angeles