From Wikileaks to Facebook

As a firm believer in freedom of speech and the citizens right to know, I applaud your stand on Julian Assange and Wikileaks [“Editorial,” Dec. 15]. If the government(s) of this and other countries don’t want to face each morning with the proverbial egg on the face, perhaps they will start to consider their actions beforehand. One can only hope. I am fully behind the people’s right to know what the hell is going on, and I say “Keep up the good work.” Banging up Assange on bogus charges and threatening the media only makes me want to know more.

Lynn Howard, North Park

About to hurl

Regarding your Dec. 15 editorial about WikiLeaks: Oh, don’t worry about it. Congress is right on top of it. Already, the new chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Michigan Republican Hal Rogers, has called for the death penalty for the soldier who provided Assange the messages. He claims the leaks caused murder. Of course, he cannot name a single person who was killed, but killing is his first order of the day even before he’s seated.

I think I’ll puke.

Keith Taylor, Chula Vista

Devolve much?

No better argument for questioning the value of Facebook, tweeting, blogging, contributing to the devolution of communication is better exemplified than by Mark Richardson’s Dec. 22 letter to the editor: “(Elitism mentality much?).”

Mike Loflen, Clairemont Mesa

A better tax plan

I agree with your Dec. 8 editorial, “Lightweight division.” While I can understand President Obama’s concern with the economy, I feel that his plan simply kicks the can down the road. Only 2 percent of American households make more than $250,000 per year.

Therefore, if the president chooses to fight the Republicans, 98 percent of America would be behind him.

The president and his staff must develop strategies to improve economic growth and bring jobs back to the U.S. I don’t trust the wealthy to do this on their own. Remember that it’s the large businesses that have shipped jobs out of the U.S. The “trickle down” theory of the Republicans won’t get it done. Give the wealthy 2 percent an extra $1,000, and they will return $500 in jobs to the other 98 percent—that’s not a very good return on investment, and that won’t rebuild the American middle class.

I liked the president’s original plan.

Extend the tax breaks for those earning less than $250,000 (98 percent) and terminate the tax breaks for those who earn more than $250,000 (2 percent). Remember that those earning more than $250,000 will be taxed at the lower rate on the first $250,000. I would then take the additional tax revenue in 2011 (from the 2 percent) and use it as a tax break for businesses that employ Americans. Any U.S. company employing at least 75 percent Americans would be entitled to some type of a tax break. Those companies employing a higher percentage of Americans would receive a larger tax break per employee. Companies using foreign labor to manufacture their products would have their tax benefits reduced based upon the labor cost to produce the same goods in the U.S.

This concept represents a direct economic stimulus. Anyone who owns a business could take advantage of it. I believe this to be far better than trusting the wealthy to hire American labor and also better than giving money to big banks that don’t make loans.

Ronald Harris, Scripps Ranch

This issue of CityBeat is brought to you by alt-weekly reporters who, unlike others in town, don’t report fiction as fact.