Letters to the editor for Tuesday, Jan. 20

Despite my best efforts to remain optimistic in the face of constant negativity and pessimism by the Star Tribune and mainstream media toward our country and the current administration over the past eight years, I have failed. I surrender. You win. I stand before you a new man, a convert of journalistic water boarding.

No longer will I be grateful for seven years absent a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil. No longer will I view seven years of relative economic prosperity as a success. I am ready to join the chorus of despair sung by the nattering nabobs of negativity.

So, let the doom and gloom of the next four years begin.

LOWELL JOHNSON, BRAINERD, MINN.

We hear repeatedly that President Bush has kept us safe since 9/11. That ignores a number of factors; one is that there were eight years between the first and second attacks on the World Trade Center. Undoubtedly many procedures put in place by Homeland Security have made such an attack more difficult, but it is good to remember that Al-Qaida is not on a time schedule.

But taking the long view, one could argue that the world for our children and grandchildren has been made much less safe because of Bush's actions. Before the Iraq war, Al-Qaida had an estimated 10,000 members; a few years ago the estimate was well over a quarter of a million. All of the Iraqis who have lost family members are angry with us; what does that mean for our future security?

President Bush's decision to ignore work that had been done on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict contributed to the outrage already present in the Muslim world. Present and future costs of the Iraq war have been estimated at $3 trillion. What if that money had been had been spent on strengthening our infrastructure?

CORINNE ROBINSON, MINNEAPOLIS

•••

President Bush's contention that he has made "the hard decisions" reveals once again how self-deluded he has been. The reason he leaves office in disgrace and public disdain is because at almost every opportunity he took the easy decision for immediate gain instead of a more difficult one that would have been better for the nation over the long term.

For example, when presented with a $281 billion budget surplus upon taking office, he chose to fritter it away by cutting taxes disproportionately for his well-off supporters rather than saving or investing it to fund Social Security or Medicare and benefit future generations.

Instead of courageously leading the nation away from a carbon-based economy in response to global climate change and accepting the entailing sacrifices, he pretended the crisis was not real and put the cost of dealing with it on future generations.

During the course of that war, he directed that captured suspects be tortured or illegally interrogated in the hope of obtaining immediate information, thereby undermining the international consensus about the humane treatment of prisoners and imperiling future generations of American military personnel. The courageous decision would have been to continue the patient, methodical interrogation of detainees that would have been consistent with the law, our national values and military traditions.

And, instead of taking the difficult decision to raise tax revenue to pay for his wars and to ask for shared sacrifice, he put them on the national credit card, leaving the bill to it our children and grandchildren.

No, George W. Bush will not be remembered for doing the right thing even though it was unpopular. He will be remembered as a president who became unpopular because he always took the easy way out.

PAUL M. LANDSKROENER, MINNEAPOLIS

It is amazing to see the lengths that opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act will go to distort the intent of the act. In parroting the talking points of business interests that oppose the Free Choice Act, U.S. Rep. John Kline claims in a Jan. 16 column that the act would eliminate secret-ballot elections as an option for workers in deciding if they want a union in their workplace. This is an outright falsehood.

Kline fails to mention that if the Employee Free Choice Act becomes law a secret ballot election remains an option if one-third of workers want an election. Under current law, card check is already legal but employers can refuse to recognize the union and force an election.

Kline is correct that if the Free Choice Act becomes law it would require a company to recognize the union if a majority of workers signs cards, but the option of a secret ballot election is still there for workers to choose. Currently the decision of having a secret ballot election or card check recognition is the bosses'.

Kline also implies that the unions have the upper hand and use underhanded tactics when it comes to union organizing. There again he fails to mention that more than 90 percent of employers force employees to attend one-on-one anti-union meetings with their supervisors during the workday. In those meetings over 50 percent of the time the boss illegally threatens to close down the workplace if workers unionize, and 25 percent of employers illegally fire pro-union workers during organizing efforts.

The Employee Free Choice Act will level the playing field to give workers the ability to bargain for better wages and benefits without employer interference. It will provide for real penalties for employers that violate workers' freedoms and livelihood, and it will enable workers to form unions when a majority says in writing or by secret ballot that's what they want.

MICHAEL LAFAVE, FOREST LAKE;