Letters to the editor

Some tribes win, but many lose

Re "Good bets," editorial, Jan. 22

I originally voted for Indian casino gambling because I saw it as a method of righting past injustices to the tribes. Later, I saw self-serving TV ads by the various tribes, expensive lobbyists being hired by the tribes and fortunes spent by small tribes to influence voting for pro-Indian candidates. The original issues of poverty, education and alcoholism have not been addressed.

Now we are being asked to support propositions that increase tribal income but do not address the issues of organized labor or the desire of racetrack owners to allow slot machines that would help assure that thousands of track employees would keep their jobs and add tax revenue to the state's coffers. I plan to vote "no" until I see an impartial chart that shows what has been spent to address the tribes' social problems and the results compared to what is spent on lobbying, campaign contributions and advertising.

Harold Walter

Northridge



The Times writes that Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97 would bring "much-needed wealth to impoverished indigenous Californians." Perhaps you are unaware that one tribe, the Agua Caliente, has earned more than half a billion dollars in tax-free profits since 2002. It seems this tribe is no longer impoverished.

Eric Nilsson

Professor of Economics

Cal State San Bernardino



There are many things wrong with your editorial position on these propositions, but perhaps the most outrageous is the claim that the deals would aid non-gambling tribes.

These deals would concentrate one-third of the gambling revenue in the hands of just four out of 108 federally recognized tribes in the state. Plus they do nothing to increase money that goes to non-gambling tribes. We do not believe this is what voters intended when they approved Indian casinos.

My tribe is part of a statewide coalition of Indians and non-Indians urging voters to reject these propositions and send the parties back to the negotiating table to come up with better deals for all of us.

Nelson Pinola

Windsor, Calif.

The writer is tribal chairman of the Manchester-Point Arena Band of Pomo Indians.

The candidates need to change

Re "Clinton, Obama hit new level of rancor," Jan. 22

I'm bothered, watching former President Clinton battle Barack Obama in South Carolina. This is the "Man From Hope" shooting down the "Audacity of Hope." It's "the first black president" versus what could be the actual first black president. I was 6 when Clinton won his first term, but I vividly recall my excitement every time I heard "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow." I still agree with that idea, which is why I'm voting for Obama. The Clintons are yesterday.

Michael Zeeck

Los Angeles



The idea that the Clintons shouldn't go hard at Obama tells you everything you need to know about the Democratic Party over the last 30 years. While the Democrats worry about process, fair debate and a polite airing of the issues, the Republicans have been willing to say and do anything to win because they understand that winning is everything. Obama's whining is exactly what the Republicans want.

Can you imagine his trying to pull that in the fall, as the party's nominee, when he faces the political progeny of H.R. Haldeman, Lee Atwater and Karl Rove? They will steamroll over him, and he won't know what hit him. "Oh, they're distorting what I really said; they're not being fair." Good luck.

The only question Democrats should be asking at this point is: "Who has the best chance of beating the Republicans in November?" Clearly, that is Hillary Clinton.

David Weber

West Hollywood

It's not just Sen. Ted Kennedy and Rep. Rahm Emanuel who think President Clinton, as well as his wife, need to abandon the old-school politics of destruction and start campaigning honestly.

It's one thing for Clinton to speak out in support of his wife, but another to demean and destroy the reputation of another Democrat just because that candidate trounced his wife in Iowa.

Bill Clinton is demeaning the office of the presidency with his behavior, and both Clintons are debasing the ideals and destroying the inclusiveness of the Democratic Party.

Marcy Rothenberg

Porter Ranch



And to think, it's only January. Americans are the recipients of nonstop political rhetoric that has caused probably the largest percentage of undecided voters in history. Hillary Clinton claims to have found her voice. In the latest debate I heard it, and it wasn't one I want to listen to for the next 10 months or the next four years. What happened to the sensitive, compassionate and tearful woman we saw two weeks ago? Obama backpedaled himself into a corner as he was slam-dunked on his voting record. John Edwards jabbed and poked like an underdog vying for the eyes of his mentor, Hillary Clinton.

Right now, there is not one candidate in any party I could visualize taking charge of our country, bringing back dignity and honor to the office, providing real change and restoring America's place in the world. What we are seeing are people so desperate to win that what happened yesterday is more important that what needs to happen tomorrow. So much for change.

Denise Gee

San Clemente

Economic reality held at bay

Re "Tough remedies stay on shelf amid refinancing fever," news analysis, Jan. 24

Politicians and economists define a recession as six consecutive months of declines in the gross national product. That outmoded definition is not realistic. It calls for extremely rare statistics to occur before politicians admit there's a recession, and it perpetuates an artificial definition using one archaic statistic. A new formula should be based on practical measurements, including increases in unemployment, inflation, home foreclosures and credit card debt and decreases in the Dow Jones industrial average. These conditions reveal the true effect on American families at a down-to-earth level, showing how jobs, homes, debts and investments stand.

Today, it is clear that we are in a recession, even if politicians don't want to call it that. This recession will continue and get worse for months without statistics ever showing six straight months of negative gross national product. So let's be honest about how families are hurting and allow corrective steps to be taken earlier.

Sam McCarver

San Juan Capistrano



The overly aggressive rate cut implemented by the Federal Reserve was excessive. Most economists, including those with the UCLA Anderson Forecast, stated before this historic act by the Fed that the U.S. economy would avoid recession. No other world bank reacted to recent stock drops with a rate cut.

This disproportionate act is pacification to Wall Street crybabies and a bailout to many who have bought sub-prime loans with rates now resetting. This giant rate cut will increase inflation, negatively affect our pocketbooks, decrease the value of the dollar and produce a lower savings rate, which will hurt senior citizens significantly.

The Fed must keep the entire populous in mind, not just Wall Street. It's wrong, and unfortunately many will feel the pain from this impetuous and reckless act.

Sean Jones

Hawthorne



America does not need a stimulus package; we need a sound fiscal policy.

If the government must give away our money (even though it can't afford healthcare for our kids), then it should be in the form of a voucher redeemable only for goods produced in the U.S. That would help our economy and American workers.

Anything else is absurd and harmful to American economic interest.

Beatrice Shushan

Oceanside

U.S. drug policy is a poor model

Re "U.S. official criticizes Chavez," Jan. 21

White House drug czar John P. Walters should think twice before criticizing a foreign government for its drug policy, much less holding the United States out as a model.

Looking to the United States as a role model for drug control is like looking to apartheid South Africa for how to deal with race. This country leads the world in per-capita incarceration rates, with less than 5% of the world's population but almost 25% of the world's prisoners. About 500,000 people are in U.S. prisons and jails today for violating a drug law; that's almost 10 times the total in 1980.

Despite this dismal record, the United States has succeeded in constructing a global drug prohibition regime modeled after its own highly punitive and moralistic approach. Rarely has one nation so successfully promoted its own failed policies to the rest of the world.

Ethan Nadelmann

Executive Director

Drug Policy Alliance

New York