LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
GM didn’t need tax bailout
12/30/2013I have a hard time understanding why The Blade did not at least mention the most logical alternative to a government-sponsored, taxpayer-financed bailout of General Motors (“Federal bailout of GM paid off despite $10B loss, study finds,” Dec. 22). You could have cited plenty of examples in which corporations that filed for bankruptcy without government money came out stronger after the process.
Wild speculation about hundreds of thousands of jobs disappearing is silly. Even with a new owner, most of GM’s production facilities and labor force would have survived. The new owners also would have needed a reliable supply chain, keeping most of those jobs intact.
A call to Volvo, which was sold by Ford Motor Co. to Geely Automobile of China in 2010, would have given you much more reliable information than the study mentioned in your article, which said a major part of the auto world would have come to an end without U.S. government support.
CLAUS STANG
Sylvania
Auto bailouts stiffed creditors
I read with amazement the praise of the government’s bailout of GM and Chrysler. Statements about how much it cost taxpayers or how many jobs were saved ignore the fact that the bailout was one of the most flagrant violations of the rule of law this country has seen.
Legitimate creditors who had a right to be paid before others instead were paid little or nothing. We seem to be in an era when the end justifies the means.
ALAN KLINE
Ottawa Hills
Pay fast-food staff a living wage
There’s talk about raising the pay of fast-food workers, and people are worried about the cost of a hamburger going up 30 cents (“Fast-food protests return amid push for wage hikes,” Dec. 6).
When I was young, these low-paid jobs were held by young people. Now, many adults have fast-food jobs because that’s the only kind of job they can get.
If service-industry jobs are going to be done by adults, they need to make a living wage, so they don’t have to depend on the social safety net to survive.
NICK STYACICH
Waterville
Photo unflattering of girl, First Lady
Why did you publish the photograph of First Lady Michelle Obama with a little girl who had fallen and was crumpled up on the floor (“Military families get peek at White House decor,” Dec. 5)?
It was an occasion to honor military families, and I’m sure that it was an unpleasant, embarrassing moment for that little girl and her family. It also was not a flattering picture of Mrs. Obama.
I wish someone would publish a follow-up photo or article showing that child in a nicer situation. That picture surely marred what should have been a proud moment for that child’s military parent, an American hero.
KAYLENE HELINE
Delta, Ohio