Letters to the editor: Environmental 'triumphs'

Letter to the Editor

Job creation

One of the biggest areas of concern in our current political arena is jobs, jobs, jobs, so I would like to make a suggestion: Because it seems that most CEOs make about 120 times what their employees make — some probably more than that — just think of the number of jobs companies could create by reducing CEO compensation and hiring more workers.

For example, for every $6 million reduced from the CEOs' packages, they could hire 120 employees with an average salary of $50,000. Some could surely afford to forfeit even more and still have a very generous income.

I find it hard to understand how giving large corporations tax breaks results in jobs. Many companies are making huge profits but instead of hiring more workers try to figure out how to get more work out of the employees they have left while cutting pay and benefits.

Some even send jobs overseas to utilize cheap labor, instead of supporting the local economy. Yet they still can afford to pay executives huge salaries.

It seems to me more jobs equal more quality products, better customer service and better sales and service — and more customers and profits.

Nancy Johnson

Lutz

Environmental 'triumphs'

Regarding "Obama nixes Canada oil pipeline" (Nation & World, Jan. 19): Oh, my. The shallow-thinkers of the "green" movement are at it again, pushing feel-good programs purportedly good for the environment and "Mother Earth" but mostly good for their pocketbooks, and the president has rolled over for them.

Their first great win was in killing, for the most part, nuclear energy, thereby improving the environment and health of all humans and animals by providing large increases in CO{-2}, toxic waste, atmospheric particulates and acids through increasing petroleum and coal usage.

The Sierra Club and allies brought us great entertainment on the nightly news by getting many states, most notably California, to ban controlled burns, giving us the spectacle of uncontrolled forest fires that consumed entire forests and roasted cute animals.

Now they have brought us another triumph: the banning of the Keystone pipeline. Canada can now build a pipeline to the Pacific Coast, put the oil on spill-vulnerable, diesel-burning oil tankers and send it a quarter of the way around the Earth to environmentally conscious China.

Gotta hand it to those folks at the Sierra Club, Environmental Working Group, Greenpeace, etc. They're consistent.

John Cooley

Zephyrhills

Democrats out of touch

How can we be so stupid to turn down the Keystone XL pipeline? We already have numerous pipelines. This one would be only 1,700 miles long. It would create jobs and improve the security of our country by making us less dependent on the Middle East and Venezuela.

This just shows how out of touch the Democrats are with the people of this country. It demonstrates their arrogance again by showing they do not care about what the majority wants.

Ruth Mahoney

Riverview

No perfect candidate

As the Republicans stagger toward the finish line of selecting a candidate for president, there is more press about Mitt Romney's all-but-assured victory.

As other states wait to vote in their primaries, there are things voters should bear in mind.

First, they need to put to rest the myth of the perfect candidate. There never has been and never will be a candidate who will enjoy unanimous appeal or support.

It is the quest for such a mythical beast that is why a lukewarm candidate such as Romney is leading the pack against more hard-core conservatives.

Put aside the personal baggage of those closest in the standings, and Romney does not look all that conservative. Remember that as governor of Massachusetts he hung taxpayers with a health care system that was the blueprint for what we call Obamacare. His system would be going broke if it were not for all the money the federal government pumps in it to prop it up. And yet Romney claims he is proud of it in one breath but wants to repeal Obamacare in the next.

Second, the Iowa and New Hampshire votes largely mean nothing. Iowa, with its homogeneous population, was largely ignored as a voting bloc until Jimmy Carter "won" there, and the press has been enamored ever since. Romney's big win in New Hampshire should be considered equally unimpressive. New Hampshire has an open primary; therefore anybody can vote.

Finally, when the liberal media (N.Y. Times, MSNBC, etc.) say that Romney is the GOP's best candidate to go against President Obama, do you really think they have conservatives' best interests at heart? Conservatives' best bet would be to examine the front-runners and pick the one who most reflects conservative principles, not someone who most reflects the opposition.

Paul Sarsfield

Seffner