Letters to the Editor

Letters: Animal welfare + Puerto Rico + National park fees + Tax cuts

Animal welfare

Re “Scientists shouldn’t shill for farm industry on animal welfare” (Viewpoints, Oct. 30) Kudos to former Sen. Dean Florez for endorsing a proposed ballot measure that would upgrade California’s laws to prevent cruelty to farm animals. Regardless of whether you eat meat, most of us want humane treatment for all living creatures. Locking animals in tight cages for their entire lives is cruel. This measure would require that eggs produced and sold in California come from cage-free birds; pork sold in California come from farms that do not lock pigs in gestation crates; and veal sold in California come from farms that do not lock calves in veal crates. We would not subject animals we call pets to such inhumane conditions. Let’s work together to end the suffering of the millions of animals we call food.

Cathryn Rakich, Sacramento

Puerto Rico

Re “Puerto Rico utility moves to scrap $300M Whitefish contract” (sacbee.com, Oct. 29): As one who has worked with consultants, let me pose an alternate view to the hiring of Whitefish Energy Holdings. Just because it was a two-employee firm doesn’t mean it was a bad deal. By being small, the firm can move quickly to hire people with specific skill sets. These people are paid high per diem but do not carry the overhead that would be required by permanent employees for vacation, family leave, sick pay, and health care. Experts can be hired and let go as the job requires. Emergency work such as is involved in repairing Puerto Rico’s electrical infrastructure is so complex that it necessitates the ability to quickly change workers when new needs arise as the job progresses. It makes much more sense for Puerto Rico to work with a firm such as Whitefish. As to whether there was something underhanded in the selection of the firm, that is another question.

Eileen Glaholt, Sacramento

National park fees

Re “Tax cuts for the rich, higher fees at national parks for families. How is that fair?” (Editorials, Oct. 3): Our beautiful national parks are blessings that come with a responsibility to care for them, not to pollute and litter. If you visit the parks, you see the horrid things people do to these treasures. As a park loving, open-minded, eco-committed American, I believe that nothing is more important than responsible environmental stewardship. Naturally, President Donald Trump’s cluelessness and narcissism insulates him from caring about our national parks. Please write your elected official.

Mitch Darnell, Sacramento

Trump’s tax cuts

About 50 percent of the changes in tax would benefit people earning more than $730,000 per year. Meanwhile, the national debt would grow $2.6 trillion the next decade, due to decreased revenue. Do Republican voters really want to give 50 percent of the tax cut to the top 1 percent, while increasing our national debt? Whom do the Republicans in Congress represent? The answer may be that they are not working for us, normal citizens, but rather for donors at our expense.

Christopher Wiren, Rocklin

  Comments