Truth behind bag ban propositions
Re “ ‘No’ on 65, ‘yes’ on 67 to ban plastic bags” (Endorsements, Sept. 30): After reading The Bee’s endorsement on the statewide plastic bag ban, I did a little research to better understand the plastic bag debate. Turns out, there’s a lot we’re not hearing.
The coverage claims that plastic bags are a main culprit in litter and waterway waste, but placing the blame on plastic bags is misleading and deceptive. Plastic retail bags are an inconsequential percentage of overall waste and litter. They are recyclable and highly reused; I use mine daily to carry lunch and line my bathroom trash cans.
For these reasons, I’m voting “no” on Proposition 67. But if someone wants to vote “yes,” it seems to me we’re all smart enough to figure out that we can actually help the environment if we vote “yes” on Proposition 65. That way the money collected from bag fees is guaranteed to go to an environmental fund, not big grocers.
Bag ban debate not complicated
The Bee’s recent endorsement completely misconstrues California’s bag debate. Accusations of “tricky” and “cynical” should be pointed elsewhere. This ban legislation is not – and has never been – about clogged storm drains and litter. Bag bans have never measurably benefited the environment.
For years, environmentalists have unsuccessfully pushed a statewide ban – that is, until they formed an alliance with big grocers. Now, thanks to backroom dealings, grocery chains will come away from Proposition 67 with hundreds of millions in new profits from the bag fees they lobbied for.
How can The Bee’s editorial board say it supports the environment, yet advocate for a “no” vote on Proposition 65? Proposition 65 would take the grocer profit scheme and actually dedicate bag fees to the environment. Californians need to vote “no” on Proposition 67, or at the very least, direct funds to the environment by voting “yes” on Proposition 65. It’s a pretty easy choice.
Nicholas S. Francois, Davis
Congress created tax loopholes
Re “Donald Trump’s taxes are a big deal” (Editorials, Oct. 4): I really get tired of hearing people complain about a person or business taking advantage of a tax loophole. A loophole is not something that just appeared in the tax code. It was put there by a bunch of our elected representatives who are in Congress to make some of their campaign contributors or special interests happy. Congress is the source of these terrible loopholes and Congress can get rid of them.
The size of Donald Trump’s savings, based on the loopholes he used, seems astronomical, but more than 500,000 individual taxpayers took advantage of the same tax rule as Trump in 1995.
Don Perera, Rocklin
Women, unite against Trump
Re “Rehash of Clinton sex scandals could backfire on Trump” (Insight, Sept. 30): I don’t get it. Why would any woman want to vote for Donald Trump after all the disparaging remarks he has aimed at them and now wanting to bring up Bill Clinton’s sex life?
I know Trump has a loyal cadre of white men who will defend him, no matter what, parroting his rationalizations and spinning the truth to make out that their leader is brilliant, smart, strong, etc.
Don’t women see that this is the last gasp of white male power? Do women still want to be dominated by “their man”? We are living in the 21st century, and all this testosterone rhetoric needs to be expunged and replaced by civil, politically correct and bully-free talk. Women, let’s unite against sexism.
How much for a beer at the arena?
Re “McCartney shares the stage with downtown’s newest star” (Page 1A, Oct. 5): After reading the article about the opening of Golden 1 Center, all I could think about was “$14 for a beer.” Really? That’s just not right.
Jim Bailey, Fair Oaks
EXTRA LETTERS ONLINE
Find them at:
HOW TO SUBMIT
Online form (preferred):
Other: Letters, P.O. Box 15779,
Sacramento, CA 95852
150-word limit. Include name, address and phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity, brevity and content.