Letters to the Editor

Letters: Do we really need a California cure?

Surgeon general

“How a surgeon general could help improve health care in California” (sacbee.com, Jan. 18): California's politicians are likely to agree that a new government agency can cure anything. We cannot add a new Surgeon General without adding another vast bureaucracy. We cannot leave our medical care in the hands of the U.S. government, can we? Is our blood pressure in California different from what patients experience in Ohio or Florida? Do we really need a California cure?

Richard E. Ralston, Newport Beach

Border wall

“Some best possible outcomes of the shutdown” (sacbee.com, Jan. 20): I agree with the idea that the State of the Union address need not be in Congress. However, the idea that President Donald Trump would voluntarily pass on the opportunity to be live on camera before Congress is risible. Trump does not want to preen on TV before a live audience? Hardly, hence his numerous continuing rallies for difficult-to-discern reasons. Really, that's adorable. Regarding Ben Boychuk's care-free assumption that the Supreme Court would automatically rule in favor of Trump even against the rest of the legal system: I thought conservatives were against the idea of politically motivated “activist” judges? And Trump’s signature and most emphatic campaign promise at every rally was not that he would build a wall, but that Mexico would pay for it. He even led the chants. “Who’s gonna pay for it? Mexico!”

Richard Vidan, Orangevale

Gang of Eight

“Lakoff: Democrats must block Trump’s wall of hate” (sacbee.com, Jan. 15): George Lakoff is wrong when he says "(President Donald) Trump likes to falsely accuse Democrats of having voted for a wall." Obviously Lakoff doesn't read The Bee, or he would have read the article in the Jan. 11 opinion section in which Marc Thiessen described the Gang of Eight, which included Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, voting for a bill that supported a wall and border security very similar to what our president is asking for. Why are they so against it now – what changed their minds? Do they have so much hate that they won't support anything Trump wants?

Joyce Wilson, Carmichael

Not serving the people

“Kamala Harris aiming to pull off an Obama-sized feat in 2020” (sacbee.com, Jan. 21): Sen. Harris is not interested in serving the people. Her only interest is serving herself. She spent the better half of her second term as California Attorney General preparing to run for the Senate. Now that she has that, she will be spending her time in the Senate positioning herself to run for president. Meanwhile, what is she doing for the people of California?

Ken Evans, Sacramento

Gun control laws

“We must do more to support gun control efforts, pressure more companies to step up” (sacbee.com, Jan. 20): Currently we live in a state with some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation and what have they gotten us? We have buried two young local police officers in the last month. Both were killed by people who were not suppose to have legal possession of any firearm. Then the number of small articles I have read in The Bee the past few months regarding the arrest of a suspect who was charged with of possession of a firearm. So it's apparent the "bad guys" don't abide by all the gun control laws because they don't care. The problem is, when are all those who advocate for gun control going to realize this very plain fact? The only thing gun control laws are doing is making it harder for the law-abiding citizen to own and possess a firearm, be it for hunting, sport shooting or home protection.

Edward Thomas, Galt

  Comments