Readers Write (Jan. 3): Occupy movement, government, elections, Iran, auto industry

Twice last week the Star Tribune printed commentaries about income inequality, both trying to help us understand that it's justified, that rich people pay a lot of taxes, that redistribution of wealth is a dicey proposition if not a flat-out bad idea and that Occupy Wall Street types were a danger to America.

Both authors missed the point. The objections of the 99 percent to the 1 percent are not about wealth, they're about influence.

When the 1 percent got in financial trouble, the government borrowed $700 billion to prop them up. When some of the 99 percent lost their homes, they were told they shouldn't have borrowed so much.

When the 1 percent admitted they didn't know what they owned but were pretty sure it was toxic, there was TARP. When some of the 99 percent saw their retirement savings evaporate, they were told to work longer.

The bailouts were bipartisan efforts, so clearly both parties believed the beneficiaries were too big to fail. What I hear the protesters saying is not that the rich have too much money but that they have too much influence.

The message of the 99 percent is that we should not be held hostage again. Let's all agree that too big to fail means too big to be.

ROLF BOLSTAD, MINNEAPOLIS

So many letter writers advocate further government oversight and increased tax revenues without any kind of critical thought of just how imprudent and irresponsible our government has been in past years.

The government continues to increase the food stamp rolls, without any kind of an accountability to determine who might be abusing the system. It has run a slipshod, lax immigration program -- not enforcing existing laws to curb the influx of undocumented immigrants into the country.

It has abused the Social Security system by removing money from a dedicated ownership account fund and placing it in the general account fund that is in the process of going broke. This is just to mention a few of our government's mismanaged programs.

At the same time, our debt continues to increase, both at the state and federal levels, yet there are advocates for an across-the-board tax increase.

Most taxpayers today are asking the question: "Why would we continue to pay further taxes and pour more money down a rat hole, when the government has shown such abusive stewardship in the past?"

JON MCCOLLUM, PLYMOUTH

* * *

Now that the election year has started, I am asking all of my fellow Americans to take a hard look at all of those running. Please do not vote a straight party line. Most Americans are not true Democrats or Republicans.

Take the next 11 months to look at each candidate -- at where he or she stands on economic issues and social issues. This is especially true for the under-30 crowd and for those who are not yet of voting age but who will be on Election Day.

Remember that each of us able to vote has a responsibility to be informed. Don't vote just based on talk radio, news channels or printed comments. They all have their own agendas.

This always means compromising -- on taxes, budgets, social issues and regulations. Politicians who refuse to compromise hurt everyone, including those who voted them in. Voters are responsible for the people they elect.

TONY ACHARTZ, SAVAGE

* * *

We have every right to financially punish Iran with sanctions ("Hands off Hormuz, U.S. tells Iranians," Dec. 29).

But Iran's government makes a fuss about the Strait of Hormuz, and the next thing you know, our Navy places itself squarely in the role of the world's police force, proclaiming that Iran's plans are illegal.

Is there a reason that none of these other countries have stepped up to defend their interests? Obviously, we have a stake in the oil flowing through the strait, but there is no good reason for the U.S. Navy to be our answer to Iran.

Advise? Yes. Assist? You bet. But let Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates deal with this directly. Let our dollars do the talking, not our warships.

ANDREW MASON, EDINA

* * *

Regarding the Dec. 30 letter stating that it would have been better to let GM and Chrysler declare bankruptcy rather than bail them out: The facts are that they did both -- getting bailout money that will largely be repaid and getting protection under bankruptcy laws.