The Sad Case of the Uighurs

In your listing of the current injustices approved by our Justice Department, you mention the sad case of the Uighurs (Mr Mukasey's Justice, New York Times Week in Review, July 27, 2008: 9).

Why cannot the United States allow into the US the tiny number of innocent Chinese Uighurs still held in Guantanamo after being cleared of any wrongdoing? We also deported a few of these unhappy people to rot in a refugee camp in Albania, why can't these be allowed entry as well.

As Franklin Roosevelt noted, our progress is marked by how we treat the unfortunates among us. In this case, we are making sure that the unfortunates do not have a chance of living among us. That is not a sign of progress.

This should change, these blameless people should be admitted to the United States immediately.

Martin G. Evans

A culture of Debt

David Brooks (New York Times, July 22, 2008: A19) omits one of the major actors in the consumer debt crisis: the Federal Government.

It is a given in the Republican philosophy that markets are self regulating. It is no accident that the last two major financial crises occurred during the deregulatory regimes of Reagan (the Savings and Loan collapse) and Bush (the Mortgage crisis).

I hope that we learn from these errors and ensure that a robust regulatory regime is introduced so that we no longer have to bail out these failing organizations.

By the way, I hear no chorus of offers of restitution from the executives who benefited during the good years. They should be called upon to pay back some of their excessive bonuses to help rehabilitate the firms which were brought low by their rash lending decisions.

Sent to the New York Times

Foreclosure

You state that "Patrick needs the flexibility to spread the cuts

across the board" (Sharpen the shears, just in case, Boston Globe,

July 16, 2008). Across the board cuts are a disaster. The Governor

should know this from his service on several Corporate Boards. Across

the board cuts will punish those agencies that are running

effectively, it will punish those town and cities that are running a

lean operation. Across the board cuts should not be a weapon in the

Governor's arsenal.

I also believe that cutting state transfers at this time would be a

major mistake. They are the innocent victims of the fallout from the

foreclosures. The towns, cities, school boards that rely heavily on

income from property taxes are likely to suffer.

If, as is predicted, 7% of home owners are likely to see foreclosures

on their homes, these innocent bystanders are likely to see a drop of

7% in their revenue from property taxes. The state should not impose

additional cuts on these jurisdictions.

Of course, the best solution would be for the Federal government to

provide them with a bailout, just as banks and individuals are being

helped. The Federal Government should immediately announce a program

to make good their losses by providing an infusion of 7% of property

tax revenue to these jurisdictions. This will prevent a massive

reduction in local and state government programs at a time when the

social safety net will be most needed.

Sent to Boston Globe

Mortgage help needed for cities and towns too.

Over the last few months, the Federal Government has come to the aid

of failing banks; proposals have been made to help homeowners

refinance their mortgages (Plan to rescue mortgage giants faces

resistance, New York Times, July 16, 2008: A1); one group, which did

not get involved in making stupid over-extending decisions, has been

left in the cold.

The towns, cities, school boards, and states that rely heavily on

income from property taxes are likely to suffer. They too should get

federal aid.

If, as is predicted, 7% of home owners are likely to see foreclosures

on their homes, these innocent bystanders (towns, cities, and states)

are likely to see a drop of 7% in their revenue from property taxes.

The Federal government should immediately announce a program to make

good their losses by providing an infusion of 7% of property tax

revenue to these jurisdictions.

This will prevent a massive reduction in local and state government

programs at a time when the social safety net will be most needed.

Sent to New York Times

Red Line on Longfellow Bridge

I share Mr JOHN LaRUFFA's unease at crossing the Longfellow Bridge on

the Red Line (letters, Boston Globe, July14, 2008). I would be a lot

more comfortable if there were only one train on the bridge at a time

but frequently trains pass each other on the bridge doubling the weight.

A slight adjustment to the schedule, even if it meant short delays,

would be warranted to prevent overburdening the bridge.

By the way, where was Governor Romney while the bridge quietly decayed

on his watch?

Sent to Boston Globe

Warning: Habits May Be Good For You

According to a report issued by the Centers for Disease control in 2002 (Guideline for Hand Hygiene in HealthCare Settings, October 25, 2002 / 51(RR16);144), only about 40% of health care workers wash their hands between treating patients. As a result, infections have a good chance of being transmitted between patients. Perhaps the procedures developed by Dr. Val Curtis to encourage hand-washing in Africa (Warning: Habits may be Good for You, New York Times Business Section, July 13, 2008: page 3) could be adopted by hospitals in the United States.

This, if successful, would result in a drop in the number and severity of hospital infections and reduce the costs of hospitalization.

Sent to New York Times

Obama and FISA: Another Flip-Flop

I cannot agree with your correspondent, James Tocco (Letters, July 11, 2008), that Senator Obama's yea vote on the FISA amendment act and Senator Clinton's war vote in November 2002 are similar in their motivation: to avoid being thought soft on terrorism.

Mr. Obama may well have voted for that reason; but the case of Mrs. Clinton is quite different. The war vote in November 2002 was a magnificent piece of realpolitik. The passage of the war vote led to Saddam Hussein allowing the Weapons Inspectors back into Iraq. Our tragic error was not taking the null findings of those inspectors seriously and pulling the President back from his misguided war in February 2003. She also has a second excuse for her vote (explained by your columnist Frank Rich on November 27th. 2005): the President knew that the intelligence on WMD and on the Al-Qaeda links was very weak; he did not pass that information along to the Senators.

Unlike your other correspondent, Bryan Erickson, I still support Mr. Obama; the alternative, four more years of a Republican administration is too awful to contemplate.