President Obama’s speech pattern; California’s Legislature fails to curb gifts to members; “free” education for all

Presidential pauses

Re “Fast brain vs. slow mouth,” Opinion, May 26

It is clear that President Obama’s frequent “uhs” and stuttering have led to questions regarding his ability to communicate. Some say he has a speech impediment; Meghan Daum calls it an “intellectual stammer,” in which his mind works too fast for his mouth.

Let us imagine: Obama is live on television speaking to a notoriously critical audience. The whole world, present and future, is observing, channeling their thoughts to the screen as the president speaks for the United States. The pressure can persistently nibble on the nerves of a person.

Nerves? Person? Oh yes! Obama is a person; he gets nervous, as would any other in his shoes. Obama does not have a brain impediment; he’s not st-st-st-stupid. He’s just got a bad case of nerves.

Vanessa Gonzalez

Downey

After eight years of the goofy, cringe-inducing rambling and stumbling of George W. Bush, I find the intelligent, thoughtful discourse (peppered with occasional off-the-cuff humor) of Obama to be a welcome relief.

Bonnie Ann Baker

Irvine

Our gifted Legislature

Re “Legislature drops effort to curb gifts,” May 27

It’s difficult to understand how the enforcement of marijuana laws or illegal cellphone usage can be justified while preventing special interests from buying the Legislature is considered too expensive.

Has anyone calculated the cost of a government responsive not to the needs of the electorate but to the selfish interests of those who provide golf vacations and Disneyland tickets?

Errol Miller

Chino

I see once again that the wolves are in charge of guarding the hen house. To them, $204,000 a year is too high a price to curb the influence of lobbyists in Sacramento. How many millions or billions of dollars does the influence of lobbyists cost taxpayers?

Jim Bean

Los Angeles

Big bucks at Blue Shield

Re “Blue Shield CEO earns $4.6 million,” Business, May 26

I’ve been a Blue Shield customer for more than 20 years. I now pay an annual premium of nearly $10,000, up $1,000 from last year and about double what I paid just a few years ago.

My deductible is $2,500 annually. Factoring in other non-covered medical costs, I’m spending about $20,000 a year before Blue Shield starts paying, and I’m healthy. It would be twice as much had my wife not just become eligible for Medicare.

Blue Shield Chief Executive Bruce Bodaken’s $4.6-million salary seems justified. How else would he be able to pay the medical expenses for him and his family?

Bruce R. Feldman

Santa Monica

At a time when so many people cannot afford even basic health insurance, this borders on criminal. And to remind us that Blue Shield is California’s largest “nonprofit” health insurer adds insult to injury. Certainly Bodaken is raking in astronomical money from his work.

It was just three months ago that Blue Shield was seeking to raise its rates as much as 59%, but it eventually backed down due to public and political pressure. The company says Bodaken’s salary is based on his performance. If he can perform brilliantly enough to earn his salary, he should be able to figure out how to offer his customers affordable policies.

Peggy Jo Abraham

Santa Monica

Perhaps the Second Coming is at hand after all, and this time Christ will drive the CEOs out of the temple. That would indeed be cause for rapture.

Paul Cooley

Culver City

The price of a free education

Re “In education, free means free,” Editorial, May 25

In a perfect world, a free education would indeed be free. But because taxpayers refuse to support the full costs, public schools do not receive the funding for all the programs necessary to provide a well-rounded, high-quality education.

So now schools are forced to cut programs that serve those same low-income students you, the ACLU and Assemblyman Ricardo Lara claim to be protecting. Responsible schools always provided safety nets for students who couldn’t afford to pay the fees. Now those same students will not be able to afford to participate when exclusive, expensive clubs will provide the only access to those activities.

As long as the state refuses to provide the necessary funding, this effort to hamstring public schools’ ability to provide as many opportunities to as many people as possible is misguided, and it is bound to fail our students.

Williams Meier

Camarillo

Having taught in California for more than a decade and in another state for almost that amount of time, I have seen many students fail a two-semester course only to take it in the summer when the class is shorter and presumably less comprehensive.

Many teachers I know see summer school as a sham. Why are taxpayers on the hook for a student who chooses to fail? Free means free once, not twice.

Students who need to retake courses should do so on their own dime. I grew up in Pennsylvania, and this was the case. Very few students failed a course because if they had, their parents would’ve been furious.

Sharon Curcio

Canyon Lake

On Medicare

Re “Medicare can’t be ignored,” Editorial, May 26

While there is no doubt that rising Medicare costs must be brought under control, the only “good idea” in Rep. Paul D. Ryan’s (R-Wis.) plan cited in the editorial has to do with returning seniors to the cutthroat private insurance market.

The Ryan plan would do nothing to stem rising medical costs, only transfer them to the seniors who can least afford them. That is not a good idea. It is poor public policy and is simply in keeping with the Republican dogma of transferring costs to vulnerable groups without asking for shared sacrifice.

The Ryan Medicare plan would be a disgrace and a national disaster

Alfred Sils

Woodland Hills

Making tracks

Re “Bullet train changes denied,” May 26

Let us examine the facts. California’s high-speed rail project started at $33 billion, now is at $43 billion but could rise as high as $65 billion. Would it really stop there? A look at the recent history of such public projects seems to indicate this will be one of the more foolhardy endeavors.

Just months ago, did Florida not prudently refuse federal funds for a similar project while we eagerly anticipated having those funds rerouted to our train project? Let’s not let the Floridians look smarter than Californians.

We should return any federal funds with the understanding that they be applied wholly to paying down the country’s debt.

Diane McDowell

Los Angeles

Hiring line

Re “Justices back Arizona on illegal hiring,” May 27

The real winners in the Supreme Court decision are the honest employers who follow the law. They will now be bidding on construction jobs and other work on a level playing field, while the cheaters who exploit the plight of the immigrants with below-market wages scramble to find a legal workforce.

This is a concept that seems to elude dissenting Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.

John Broecker

Lake Forest