Letters to the editor, Jan. 14

On the freedom to do business We in the United States tend to view our nation as a nation of free enterprise or a free market system. Personally I believe that it is a workable system that could be much, much worse but also probably could be bett...

On the freedom to do business

We in the United States tend to view our nation as a nation of free enterprise or a free market system. Personally I believe that it is a workable system that could be much, much worse but also probably could be better in some ways.

I think that there is some confusion when a person considers what "free" means. In our system, "free" does not mean free of conducting a business or corporation without following certain rules or regulations. Business conducted in our nation is according to the rules, that is just the way it is.

Personally I believe that good and reasonable people laws and regulations that we as citizens own and live by, help us greatly in our nation.

There are some businesses that start up and just thrive with success probably because they are providing a great product, at a great price and providing excellent services. These types of businesses really don't need special tax breaks or special allowances to be successful, they just keep up the good work, keep making healthy profits, and have no problem paying the required taxes.


Of course the tax rate should be fare, reasonable and equitable.

Corporations are "free" to have certain advantages that a sole proprietorship is not "free" to have. I do not necessarily see this as being negative. However, I do see it as being negative, when I see some corporations with these intrinsic advantages, operating in the "free" enterprise paying CEO's outrageous amounts of money.

I read recently something like a CEO being paid $80 million/year for five years. Now couldn't that corporation have groomed some potentially-able CEO candidates, that could end up doing a good-to-excellent job and be paid only (a mere) $8 million/year.

Here is some interesting arithmetic: if a corporation has 800 million shares that can be publicly traded and the CEO got paid $80 million in a year when the corporation had $0/share earnings, yet the CEO made $0.10/share. It wouldn't seem proper, would it? One might ask whether a CEO should also be paid retirement money and other benefits, being that they might be paid a mere $8 million or more per year.

And related to the above, I believe that the decent corporations that are thriving and are able to be successful in the "free" enterprise system that allows for advantages for corporations should not be allowed to be destroyed by takeover, merger or buyout.

There are worthwhile reasons for not allowing a decent, healthy corporation to be pillaged or destroyed. Decent, healthy corporations tend to provide high quality, long lasting jobs; they keep the work and the jobs in or nation; specially trained and able people are on hand in our nation ready and able to serve the strategic needs of our nation; they provide stability and stewardship for local communities; they are able to retain profits that can be used for research and development, maintain employee expertise to provide progressively better product and service at prices that are competitive in the world market.

In other words, our decent healthy corporations that are ready and able to endure and compete in the world market should not be wounded, weakened or destroyed by takeover, merger or buyout. Too much of this has already occurred.



Doug Fieldman


Second term distress

Ours is a government of laws, not of men encompassing a system of checks and balances within a division of power.

One of the truisms of our land's recent history is the repetitious phenomenon that forebodes second terms of recent presidents, Republican or Democrat, as over-reaching let-downs.

These self-serving leaders seemed unable to grasp the concept that a safeguard was incorporated into the Constitution as a buffer against leadership unresponsive to public concerns as well as looming consequences when disregarding the law.

In 1936, President Roosevelt was virtually devoid of congressional opposition.

His planned alterations to the Supreme Court provoked a wary nation.


His plans were quashed, his majorities eroded.

To this we can add: Watergate, Vietnam, Iran-Contra, sexual high-jinks and Iraq, actions which demanded restoration of Constitutional integrity.

Our founding father's words contradicted a narrow clique's vision propagating partiality.

However, a reminder: These presidents were elected by free choice.

This is yet another call to probe deeper into motives and to reject the lure of the electioneering frenzy.

Paul Lampi


What To Read Next
Get Local