Mortgages and foreclosures; illegal immigration; Obamacare
Borrow some sense
Re “Pay the mortgage, hurt the economy,” Nov. 1
Lenders are learning quickly not to lend, which hurts the economy. Ultimately, banks do not set the lending standards; they are subject to the markets’ willingness to supply capital. So paying a mortgage does not hurt the economy. Suggesting that it does is foolish.
And since when did being underwater become a reason not to repay a loan? After making home loan payments as scheduled, I guarantee that when the last payment is made, the homeowner will not be underwater (unless asset values are negative, which is implausible). In fact, being underwater on a loan is probably the norm for consumers. Buy a car with a normal down payment, drive it for a few months and see what the car is worth; you’d probably be underwater.
It’s time for the borrowers to realize they did this to themselves. Nobody made them borrow the money, and it is time to pay up.
Pieter Vandenberg
El Cajon
It seems to me that, once again, lender greed is to blame. What if the lenders reduced each mortgage made on a primary residence in the last five years by 30%?
In most cases, the lenders have already sold the paper to the secondary markets, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have already been bailed out with our tax dollars. This would greatly reduce the number of foreclosures, which the banks can’t adequately deal with, and increase owners’ equity.
Then — and here’s a real surprise — the economy just might start to move in the right direction.
Donna Kehrer
Lake Arrowhead, Calif.
All about immigration
Re “Change we can live with,” Opinion, Nov. 1
Gregory Rodriguez confuses legal and illegal immigration. Of course Americans, Californians included, believe that legal immigration is a benefit to the nation. It is illegal immigration that Americans oppose.
Consider that while there are about 2.2 million unemployed workers in California, there are also about 1.7 million illegal immigrants in the state’s labor force. The unemployment rate in California could be substantially reduced if the federal government only enforced our nation’s immigration laws.
Americans oppose illegal immigration because of the impact on their lives, not because they have a “visceral dislike of newcomers” or suffer from an “anti-immigrant frenzy.”
Rep. Lamar Smith
(R- Texas)
The writer is the House Judiciary Committee’s ranking member.
There is a difference between being anti-immigrant and being anti-immigration. Though there may be no good reason to worry about the cultural landscape of California, which has been enriched by immigrants, there are good reasons to worry about the physical and environmental landscape, which has been seriously degraded by immigration.
Immigration and the high birthrates of immigrants drive the state’s unsustainable population increase. Can anyone think that the state would be improved by more traffic, more crowded beaches and parks, more of our farm and wild land converted to subdivisions, and more demands on our water, air and energy resources?
Respect for our common humanity requires that we treat our immigrants as neighbors; respect for the environment and quality of life requires that we seriously limit immigration.
John La Grange
Solana Beach
What’s next on healthcare
Re “Obamacare’s prognosis,” Opinion, Oct. 31
Lawrence R. Jacobs and Theda Skocpol don’t mention that all appropriations bills originate in the House. A Republican-controlled House can kill Obamacare in its cradle merely by refusing to fund it.
And if a Republican House doesn’t kill it, the U.S. Supreme Court might. The justices would have to go against precedent, but the current majority proved with the Citizens United case its intent to return to a “strict” interpretation of the Constitution that exalts limited government over social welfare.
Mark Gabrish Conlan
San Diego
Though I agree that Obamacare will be the law of the land eventually, I must ask, what took so long?
The true character of a nation is measured in large part by how it provides healthcare. While all of Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan insure all their countrymen, the U.S. has about 50 million uninsured. An estimated 45,000 Americans die every year because they lack insurance.
This is not reflective of a great nation. Perhaps we can get there this century.
Bob Teigan
Santa Susana
Considering Arizona’s law
Re “Part of Arizona law may be allowed,” Nov. 2
SB 1070 does nothing to solve the issue of undocumented immigration. Its only effect is to instill fear in the undocumented already here.
Americans are mad because the economy is bad and they want to blame someone, and it’s easy to scapegoat the people who do not have a voice. We should look at ways to stop more illegal immigrants from coming and work with the ones who are here already.
Angelica Cortez
Northridge
Carlos T. Bea, a judge on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, likened Arizona’s immigration law to a state enforcing federal income tax laws. In fact, this happens all the time under tax enforcement “sharing” agreements between Washington and numerous states (including California) under terms that virtually mirror what Arizona’s law says.
One would expect a higher level of knowledge from a federal appeals judge.
Kip Dellinger
Santa Monica
Free speech in a game world
Re “Justices split on violent games,” Business, Nov. 3
I can see why the Supreme Court justices are having trouble reaching consensus on a California law that would ban the sale of violent video games to children. Because the court only gives lip service to, but no longer abides by, our Constitution — in particular the 1st Amendment — this is almost to be expected.
In the interest of consistency, however, I suggest that those favoring such a law should also support banning our many vicious wars around the globe. Our blatant and hideous examples of killing, maiming and torturing do far more harm to impressionable children than any silly electronic games ever did.
Gordon Wilson
Laguna Niguel
Re “Don’t forget free speech,” Editorial, Nov. 1
The logical conclusion to your editorial: Let the world go to hell if only the letter of the law is upheld, right?
Protecting children from even the potential (but proved by common sense) effects of violent video games should justify exemption from this sacred cow of the 1st Amendment.
Dan Kraus
Thousand Oaks
Concessions
Re “Little tweaks won’t solve pension ills,” Nov. 1
If the unions are really willing to make concessions during these tough times, as the Service Employees International Union’s Terry Brennand suggests, why not agree to lower the benefits of not just new hires but also those who have been hired within the last five years? Most employees in the private sector don’t fully vest until they have served half a decade; why should it be any different for them?
Sure, the employees wouldn’t like this idea. But anyone not employed by the state probably doesn’t like the alternative. So on behalf of them, I offer my apologies and suggest they look for a job with more generous benefits. (Good luck.)
Daniel Shafer
West Hollywood
Guns must go
Re “5-year-old boy fatally wounded in gang shooting,” Nov. 2
It seems this nightmare never ends and we never wake up from the horror and cycle of gun violence.
The successful program in which people turn in guns with no questions asked needs to be a regular public service. The guns must go; this chronic problem must be addressed; the killings must stop.
No child is safe until guns are out of the hands of these maniacs.
Frances Terrell Lippman
Sherman Oaks
Deadly days
Re “Afghan civilian deaths rise,” Nov. 2
This article says that “only three civilians were mistakenly killed in helicopter attacks in the first 10 months of 2009, but the total through late October of this year is 37.”
I agree that the rise in deaths is substantial. But I do not believe the word “only” should be used in connotation with the death of any human being in any type of conflict.
Wes Correll
Dana Point
