Readers Write (Jan. 16): Bernie Sanders, Republican debate, pollution-control e-mails, public boondoggles

A writer suggests that Bernie Sanders' plan to tax Wall Street speculators will be difficult because it is impossible to determine what he actually means.

No, it isn't. Sanders is referring to a financial transaction tax (FTT). It simply means that a very small tax, something in the neighborhood of 1/2 percent or 1/10 percent be imposed on every stock transaction.

An FTT has numerous beneficial effects. One is that it would raise a large amount of money even though it is small because of the immense dollar volume of daily stock transactions. Another is that it would limit speculation. There are computer programs that automate buying and selling of stock in such a manner that a profit of 1/2 percent is worthwhile.

These transactions add nothing to the economy, and they would be discouraged by an FTT because of the small profit margins.

Meanwhile, an FTT would be virtually unnoticed by small investors who are buying stock for the long term. A $10,000 purchase might cost $10. To learn more, check out the website for the Center for Economic and Policy Research. A quote from that website:

The FTT is not a new idea. From 1914 to 1966, the U.S. levied a tax on stock issuances (0.1 percent in 1965) and transfers (0.04 percent). During the Great Depression, Congress more than doubled the tax to help financial recovery and job creation. Over 30 countries — including Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland and the U.K. — have some form of the FTT. Of the G20 nations, 16 have an FTT. There is a 0.5 percent tax imposed on each trade on the London Stock Exchange. In fact, the U.S. still has a very small FTT, which is used to finance the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Well, we didn't learn anything new at Thursday's GOP presidential candidates' debate, but they certainly did affirm, in capital letters, that the only people they hate as much as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are each other.

And to their disgrace, they firmly upheld their belief in our country as a nation of scaredy-cats looking for Daddy to shout wildly at the monster under our beds so we can continue to mooch a bowl of milk and a nap in a warm lap wherever possible.

The Tea Party has denied the rest of us the opportunity to vote between two qualified, albeit differing, candidates for our next president. Today's Republican Party is an embarrassment.

Shawn Gilbert, Bloomington

• • •

Watching the Republican debate/shouting match, I was struck by the differences between Nikki Haley, who delivered the Republican response to the State of the Union address, and the angry, old men who call themselves candidates.

Haley, the Republican governor of South Carolina, actually took the time to explain her party's position without the nasty lack of respect we hear from thecandidates. Hopefully, people like Haley and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan are the new face of the Republican Party. The time is now for a moderate/independent third-party candidate.

Mark Veronen, Ponsford, Minn.

• • •

I am wondering what Jesus would think about the "Christian" politicians who continue to angrily encourage the U.S. to "live in fear," increasingly intervene in destructive military actions, arm ourselves as much as possible, repeal the Affordable Care Act and don't have any solutions for saving God's creation from environmental destruction.

David Councilman, Minneapolis

I have a question for state Sen. David Osmek, who is complaining about the new Minnesota Senate Building and insists that voters hold DFLers accountable for it. You see, Osmek is a Tea Party Republican. In a 2012 Republican primary, Osmek defeated then-state representative and mainstream Republican Connie Doepke in part over Doepke's support for the new Minnesota Vikings stadium, essentially calling that a boondoggle. So if that is a boondoggle, shouldn't then voters also take out the six Republican state senators who voted for that who are still in public office, too? After all, they should pay as well for that publicly financed "boondoggle," since the public contribution for U.S. Bank Stadium was $348 million and the state Senate building cost only $77 million ($100 million if including the new fees). Osmek clearly states that if you complain about one controversial, publicly financed project, you have to go after all of them and everyone who supports them. As for Vikings fans still grieving last Sunday's loss, please remember it would be the Minnesota Vikings football team heading to Los Angeles instead of the St. Louis Rams, so the Vikings and all Vikings games would have been kaput if Osmek's common sense for his so-called "standing up for the taxpayer" had his way.