An L.A. institution closes; more fallout from the Massachusetts Senate election; the constitutionality of healthcare reform

A place of dreams

Re “Booksellers step out from under the Bodhi Tree,” Jan. 18

In troubled times, I often find myself dreaming that I am wandering the aisles at the Bodhi Tree.

Very soon, I find myself there in real life, a cup of complimentary tea in hand, surrounded by the wisdom of the ages and new hopes for the potential of mankind.

The Bodhi Tree has served our community as a starting point for countless personal journeys, and as a nexus of unexpected pathways into truer living.

I’m glad I’ve almost memorized the place. I know I’ll be visiting it in my dreams for the rest of my life.

Michael Gastaldo
Los Angeles

The Bay State debate goes on

Re “For Democrats, it’s back to the drawing board,” Jan. 20

President Obama didn’t lose that Massachusetts election; Martha Coakley did.

She was a boring candidate up against a sparkler. Worse, she took for granted a large lead, spending part of December on vacation rather than attending to the voters she’d hoped to represent.

I am angry at that woman for dragging the country down with her -- jeopardizing so many good programs in Congress -- as she arrogantly thought Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s seat was her due.

Helen Guerrant Toy
San Marino

“The people” have spoken on healthcare reform, and the Democrats have listened? Let’s do the math.

Sen.-elect Scott Brown finished ahead of Coakley by about 110,000 votes. That’s 110,000 out of an estimated U.S. population of more than 300 million. That’s less than four out of every 10,000 citizens.

About the same as the odds of finding a backbone in a Democratic congressman.

So much for a representative democracy.

Gary Hathaway
Sierra Madre

Tuesday’s election in Massachusetts was a setback for Democrats and for healthcare reform. It was also a single state election in an off year and not a coup d’etat.

Democrats in Congress must not allow the Massachusetts results to nullify a national election that, a mere14 months ago, conferred a mandate for broad change, including healthcare reform.

A chance to reform healthcare happens once or twice a generation. The Democrats still have strong majorities in both houses and need to fight their way to the finish line.

If they back away from healthcare reform while it is finally in their grasp, they deserve to be swept out in November.

Daniel J. Stone, MD
Beverly Hills
The writer is associate medical director, Cedars Sinai Health Associates.

Not too happy with Tim either

Re “Rise of the angry voter,” Opinion, Jan.20

Tim Rutten is absolutely right that the voters are very angry.

But he goes off the rails when he pins that anger on middle-class frustration and blames employers for the plight of middle-class workers.

It is clear that the Massachusetts election of Brown was the direct result of the president and the Democrats completely misreading a country that is centrist in nature. Brown’s candidacy was all about the anger of runaway spending, the lack of transparency and the fear of tax increases.

Rutten’s views are disingenuous.

Terry Johnston
Newport Beach

Perhaps it is not that “the president and his surrogates have done a lousy job of selling the electorate on reform,” but that they have a lousy product to sell.

If it was so great, they would not have to sell it.

Charlene A. Scherer
Rancho Mirage

The angry voter comes in various flavors:

* The leftist who wanted Obama to undo everything the Bush administration had done in the last eight years.

* The right-winger who wanted to be able to run on a platform that blames Obama for the years of financial damage that preceded his administration.

* The person who has health insurance, hasn’t (yet) been hurt by the current system and doesn’t want to help pay for those who have.

* The voter who may not have liked the imperial presidency of Bush/Cheney but resents the messiness of having Congress’ constitutional responsibilities returned to Congress.

* The Social Security and Medicare beneficiary who thinks there won’t be any curbs on those programs unless the healthcare bill passes -- even though there will be more limitations if nothing changes and the country can’t pay for the escalating entitlements.

But the solution the angry voter seems to have chosen is to return to power the party that caused all the problems Obama hasn’t yet been able to fix.

Will someone explain the logic of that to me?

Donald Schwartz
Los Angeles

Rutten says voters are angry at both parties. Could be.

But in the key political state of Virginia, a Republican recently won the governorship.

The same goes for “blue” New Jersey.

And in the “bluest” of all states, Massachusetts, a Republican won the “Kennedy seat” in the Senate.

That seems like a trend to me, no matter how eloquently Rutten tries to spin it differently.

Paul Knopick
Laguna Hills

The Constitution and healthcare

Re “Obamacare: Good policy or bad, it’s clearly constitutional,” and “Obamacare: The Democrats’ legislation ignores the Constitution,” Opinion, Jan. 20

Professor Akhil Reed Amar is a brilliant scholar, but you wouldn’t guess it from his Op-Ed on the constitutionality of the Obama healthcare plan, in which he sounds like a cheerleading hack for the administration’s legislative efforts.

According to him, Congress can tax pretty much anybody, any time, any way, and can pass any individual mandate it chooses because, hey, it can force you to fight for your country.

Does Amar really believe, for instance, that exempting Nebraska folks from an otherwise national tax in the name of political expediency presents no legitimate constitutional issue? Or that Congress can order everybody to buy Bayer aspirin? Or Wheaties?

It is surprising and dismaying to see a professional politician such as Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) besting the professional scholar in constitutional analysis.

Thomas J. Weiss
Woodland Hills

Hatch and Utah Atty. Gen. Mark Shurtleff write: “The mandate that individuals obtain health insurance . . . would be the first time in American history that Congress has required all Americans to purchase a particular good or service.”

That’s incorrect. We are already forced by the federal (and state) government to buy goods or services we might not desire. The feds require me to buy Social Security insurance; the state requires me to buy disability insurance.

The feds can coerce states into action when the general public welfare is served. The federal government can withhold educational funding to states that don’t implement the No Child Left Behind Act. In the 1970s, it threatened to withhold highway funds to states that didn’t implement the 55 mph speed limit.

Amar makes sense: The healthcare bill is constitutional.

But that really doesn’t matter. Hatch just wants to sink it, whether it’s unconstitutional or not.

Michael Sullivan
San Luis Obispo

With the election of Brown as the 41st Senate vote against the healthcare bill, you should have had a third Op-Ed headlined “Obamacare: Oops, nevermind.”

Steve Stillman
Redondo Beach