Blade Editor David Kushma said in his June 23 op-ed column, “Who benefits from more, bigger development deals?”, that no one would reasonably suggest abolishing all corporate incentives. I suggest doing exactly that on a national level.
If we abolished corporate incentives, business decisions would be made based on available workers, skills, proximity to raw materials, and the end use of the product or service. None of these have anything to do with the government distributing what it took from taxpayers to give to someone else.
I have been self-employed for more than 20 years and not needed any government handouts. If a business cannot survive based on the goods or services it provides, it should close.
President Hoffman’s Machining and Repair LLC Clyde, Ohio
NRC errs on the side of safety
Anti-nuclear forces are trying to latch on to the issues at the San Onofre nuclear power plant to kill other safe and efficiently operating reactors such as Davis-Besse (“Calif. nuclear plant closing has local implications; Critics want regulators to revisit Davis-Besse’s plans,” June 9).
First they try to raise suspicions that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is trying to avoid its responsibility to inspect facilities and maintain safety. Then they comment that computer models can be wrong and compromise safety. All this is far from the truth.
The NRC’s stringent enforcement often errs on the side of safety, as it did at San Onofre when the plant could have operated safely at lower power. But the NRC wanted more evidence.
As for computer models, where safety is concerned, they need to be verified with experience. The issue at San Onofre was not computer software that had anything to do with safety, it was about the design of the heat exchanger.
The regulatory system that oversees nuclear energy and the operators of nuclear plants have done a remarkable job of keeping safety first in this country. The result is a track record that has kept our plants operating efficiently while protecting workers and the public.
Editor’s note: The letter writer is a nuclear engineer with an aerospace company.
Writing UT out of will praised
I say “bravo” to Steven Kramer for his decision not to bequeath money to the University of Toledo because of its decision to cancel the medical transfer agreement with Capital Care Network, a local provider of abortion services (“Decision costs UT endowment; Jacobs’ rejection of abortion clinics’ pact leads ex-prof to alter will,” June 6).
Mr. Kramer shares my outrage at the University of Toledo Medical Center. It is willing to treat in its emergency room women who might have complications after having had an abortion, but will not sign a transfer agreement with local clinics.
UT President Lloyd Jacobs said the university wanted to be neutral on the issue. However, the decision likely will result in the closing of the clinics. His decision has become anything but neutral.
The move also makes no sense because UTMC needs the clinics to provide a necessary rotation for its residents who want to be trained in abortion procedures.
My children once showed an interest in attending UT. I won’t encourage them to do so. I want them to attend a university where the president makes decisions that make good sense. Making a decision not to agree to provide care to women who you are already willing to treat does not make good sense.
Guidelines: Please keep your comments smart and civil. Don't attack other readers personally, and keep your language decent. Comments that violate these standards, or our privacy statement or visitor's agreement, are subject to being removed and commenters are subject to being banned. To post comments, you must be a registered user on toledoblade.com. To find out more, please visit the FAQ.