Another surcharge, another show

Re "New airline trend: More frequent fees" (Page A1, June 20): The article discussed the variety of charges that airlines are adding to the cost of flying. This practice isn't the exclusive purview of the airlines. Our local Music Circus is engaging in it it, too.

We recently bought tickets to a Music Circus production and were startled by the $8 "convenience fee" and $4 "facilities fee." We do not know what convenience has been provided or what facilities are being funded. These two fees added a whopping 26 percent to the cost of the ticket. On top of these is an "order processing fee" of $3.75 .

I suggest that the airlines and Music Circus stop playing games with advertised ticket prices and fees not included in their ads, and charge the actual cost of a ticket.

– Michael Hill-Weld, Nevada City

How much more can a guy take?

I'm a husband and father of three whose oldest has just finished her first year of college. My employer of 15 years has frozen my pension, eliminated retiree medical benefits and reduced my pay, health care and 401(k) benefits. I have no guarantee of employment whatsoever, and the "global economy" is shifting jobs in my field to other countries.

How much more should I be expected to pay in state taxes and fees to support a bureaucracy that can't make significant efficiency changes to its structure and operation?

– Gary Jones, Rocklin

Retiree wants pension … cut?

As a retired state employee, I'm following the example of the legislators who've voluntarily reduced their own pay. I've asked CalPERS to cut my retirement benefit by 5 percent and direct the savings to the state general fund.

California has been generous with me, so I can afford it. So can Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's well-paid political appointees, who should do the same.

And California has been especially generous with Schwarzenegger himself and his fellow multimillionaires. They should have no objection to a 5 percent income tax increase on the highest-income Californians.

Remember what your priest told you, governor. From those to whom much is given, much is expected.

– Greg deGiere, Sacramento

UCD appointee is 'tainted goods'

This situation with the newly appointed UC Davis chancellor, Linda Katehi, defies belief.

To hear her tell it, we should believe that she as provost at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign knew nothing about the special treatment for admissions. Her job was head of admissions. That she, in her own words, is "ethical" without a fault. That she as No. 2 behind the chancellor never even heard about the special treatment.

Please stop the madness. Our new chancellor is coming to our campus as tainted goods. If she didn't know what was going on, she must have had her head in a sand pile. If she did know but didn't do anything about it, then she is without the guts to stand up to the bureaucracy.

Whatever the case, this is not the behavior of a true leader of an institution such as UC Davis. This is just more of the same high-level hubris and don't-give-a-wit about what real people think. It's the good-ole-boy/girl system at its worst.

– Michael Phillips, Davis

$400,000 salary's a bargain

Re "Campus chiefs aren't feeling the pain" (Our Region, June 25): Where is the new information? These salaries have been covered in at least three recent articles.

Yes, $400,000 is a lot of money. But bear in mind that UC Davis is a $1 billion enterprise with a medical school, a law school, an engineering school and a veterinary school, along with all the other graduate and undergraduate programs. It is also a major research institution and economic driver for the area.

There are very few available candidates with the experience and education to handle this position, and even fewer who want to lead a university through round after round of budget cuts in a bankrupt state. The university is fortunate to have found a qualified chancellor at this salary.

– Kevin Smith, Vacaville

George Will and energy reality

Re "If Spain's reported tale is true, green jobs put us in red" (Viewpoints, June 25): George Will is skeptical of the cost of green jobs, using information from Spain. I would prefer that he stick to research and real numbers from the United States regarding the capital, operating and retirement costs for conventional energy generation.

Please show costs for nuclear power's waste, transportation and secure storage (for at least 100,000 years). How about calculating the cost of altered rainfall patterns and more severe storms that are a direct result of rising atmospheric temperatures from fossil-based carbon dioxide? How much will that be in real dollars?

There is no environmental downside to renewables, yet critics such as Will love to lambaste green energy as an expensive "tilt at windmills" rather than to explore the cost of staying addicted to conventional energy. Neither has he illustrated the incentives for fossil fuel systems vs. those for green.

It's easier for him to point at Spain than to make a real argument based on facts closer to home.

– Bill Martin, Quincy