Letters to the Editor

Greed, voting, water waste, etc.

Re-examine our values

Re “Nursing homes unmasked” (Page A1, Nov. 9-11): The substandard care that occurs in many of our nursing homes is indicative of a cancer on our society that I call “money before people” and “profit above all else.”

As long as we, as a society, put the love of money above the welfare of our people, abuses such as the ones that The Bee documented will continue to occur. They will occur not only in elder-care facilities, but in schools, prisons, hospitals and everywhere else. Abuses will occur in transportation, manufacturing, financial services, science and anywhere that there is a profit motive that is put above human welfare.

Excusing corporate abuses because “after all, making a profit is their responsibility” is morally abhorrent. Saying there isn’t enough money to fix things when people are stockpiling trillions of dollars in offshore tax havens is a lie. Glibly talking about “personal responsibility” as if we have no responsibility to one another is the ultimate act of selfishness and greed. If we don’t change our collective attitudes that value the profit motive above people’s welfare, we will, as Tom Lehrer once said, “All go together when we go.”

Dawn Wolfson, Cameron Park

Concerns about voting by mail

As a vote-by-mail citizen, I am concerned about the lack of supervision of the pink collection boxes. I submitted my vote-by-mail ballot at Elk Grove City Hall. When I entered the office where the pink collection box was located, I noticed there was no one there in the office. I waited three minutes and still no one was there. I put my voting envelope in the pink box and left. I am concerned that there was no one watching or observing the pink collection box. Anyone could have tampered with it with no one around. Did anyone else experience this?

Suzanne Spillman, Elk Grove

Trusting fools

Re “One less excuse to ignore climate change” (Editorials, Nov. 13): China’s leadership states publicly whatever it wants. In a recent rant about America and its decadence, China made clear its dislike for the U.S. Interestingly it supports and maintains one of the world’s worst despotic countries in North Korea but publicly opposes it.

I am reminded of the Chinese proverb “A fool judges people by the presents they give him.” Perhaps the global warming agreement seems to be such an event.

Conny Saab, Fair Oaks

Reduce health pollutants

The Sacramento Bee’s editorial supported the recent agreement between U.S. and China to cut levels of carbon emissions, which seriously pollute the Earth’s atmosphere. Although these new targets are not enough to get us out of serious public health and environment risks, it is a motivating step.

Increasing levels of CO2 emissions impair access to sufficient oxygen and increase public health risks. Without strong leadership to reduce the effects, individuals and communities have begun to join efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change. A major effort at this time is to reduce use of cheap CO2 fuels as a source of energy. This is the only thing we can do, and we must do it now. Put a high price on this energy source with a fee/dividend program, returning the increase in price to the American public.

Linda Hoganson, Sacramento

Landmark agreement?

The Sacramento Bee editorial board hits the nail on the pointed end again. To say that President Barack Obama has reached a landmark agreement with China on greenhouse gas emissions is like saying China is on the cutting edge of human rights. Really?

China will keep polluting nonstop until 2030. The U.S. is to ratchet down even further on emissions, possibly to the detriment of our economy all while China is working 24/7 to sink our economy. Landmark? No, Obama got played again.

Patrick McCulley, El Dorado Hills

McClintock opposes increases

Re “Yosemite entry fee hikes will keep everyday people out” (Viewpoints, Nov. 9): How sad that The Sacramento Bee’s compulsive dislike for Tom McClintock makes it impossible for some to recognize common ground.

Exhibit A is Sanders LaMont’s op-ed in which he laments Yosemite’s proposed fee increases and snarks that McClintock “won’t have much to say about this.” In fact, McClintock took a strong stand against the proposed fee increases when they were first proposed a month ago, for the same reason LaMont gave: the adverse effect on tourism. McClintock has not only vigorously opposed the increase, but he sits on the key congressional committee that oversees Yosemite.

Nikita Kostyuk, Sacramento

No problem with increased fees

I must say that Sanders LaMont’s take on the issue of entry fees to Yosemite National Park was a waste of paper and time for readers. Entry fees soaring from $20 to $30 for a weekly pass. Holy cow! Yosemite is a treasure and should be appreciated as such by all lucky enough to visit.

A movie would cost far more, with far fewer memories generated, and if the extra money allows staff to try to prevent the random clueless driftwood from spray-painting graffiti on the Mist Trail, it is money well-spent. Any increase is a very small price to pay for the privilege of visiting any park. It is not exclusionary, it is inevitable, but perhaps the author would like entry fees and wages set to 1950 levels too.

Ned Tompkins, Folsom

Practice what you preach

The city of Sacramento has asked its residents to water only one day a week, as we return to Pacific Standard Time. That being Saturday or Sunday, depending on odd or even house numbers. Why does the city water Frank Seymour Park several times a week? The city of Sacramento needs to practice what it preaches.

Vicki Bezzone, Sacramento


Find them at:



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.