Let businesses pay for wages
Re “Focus on tax credit, not minimum wage” (Editorials, June 5): Helping California’s poor is a commendable and desirable goal. But why should taxpayers foot the $380 million bill for an earned-income tax credit? Why should business owners benefit from a low minimum wage while California taxpayers are getting nicked to the tune of $380 million?
The editorial says a minimum-wage hike would cost the state “tens of millions of dollars” but isn’t more specific and makes no mention of why or how. And why shouldn’t a minimum-wage increase cost businesses? They are the ones benefiting from the labor.
Timothy A Shull, Sacramento
AB 890 safely meets demand
Re “Anesthesia bill puts patient safety at risk” (Viewpoints, May 29): Assembly Bill 890 was designed to help address the workforce shortage by allowing certified anesthesiologist assistants to practice in California. Like physician assistants, anesthesiologist assistants are certified, nationally proven and safe care providers.
Certified anesthesiologist assistants work as team members of the physician-led anesthesia care team. Patients understandably want a fully qualified, medically trained physician to direct their anesthesia care. Certified anesthesiologist assistants will safely help physicians meet the growing demands of California’s increasing number of newly insured patients.
Dr. Paul Yost, Seal Beach,
president of California Society of Anesthesiologists
Logic in replacing U.S. workers?
Re “Here’s your pink slip, but train your replacement before you go” (Insight, June 4): How grateful should I feel for a government that creates opportunities for corporate abuse of the H-1B visa program by allowing replacement of U.S. workers with cheap, imported skilled labor? Having to train those replacement workers to take your job is demonstrative of the short-sighted, cynical and profit-driven motives of senior corporate managers. Where do elected officials hide their logic and sound judgment when they get to D.C.?
Gregory Ptucha, Sacramento
Executions, assisted suicide
Re “State agrees to draft one-drug protocol for executions” (Capitol & California, June 3): The angst and arguments against capital punishment based on a supposed inability to develop a protocol to accomplish the task humanely seem a bit disingenuous when juxtaposed to the debate on assisted suicide. Nowhere in the assisted-suicide debate have I heard angst based on an inability to accomplish that task humanely. Why can’t the same protocol apply to capital punishment?
Chris Kephart, Orangevale
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.