Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
Milpitas shuttle program
should be more robust
Re. “Milpitas to spend $1.3 million for an on-demand shuttle program,” Page B1, Oct. 6:
As a lifelong resident of California and local to the area, I feel that this program will be very beneficial. My only concern is those who will benefit most using the program like the elderly and those within minority communities throughout Milpitas who struggle due to a language barrier. They may not be informed that such a program exists, or know how to access it. It states that there will be a substantial amount of money put aside for marketing. Will that money also be used for community outreach and bilingual options?
According to Datausa.io(https://datausa.io/) about 23% of the Milpitas population are people of color making below $100,000 annual income. This demographic should be the highest concern seeing as they have the most to benefit from this program. It would allow for even higher use of the program to create a profit to improve and potentially extend its continuation since it’s only lasting 18 months.
Aldo Delacruz
Milpitas
Better use than ‘hero pay’
for county’s money
When I read this article about Santa Clara County issuing $2,500 bonuses for all county employees working during the pandemic I just about choked on my burrito.
My guess is that the vast majority of the county employees continued working, most from home, and didn’t miss a paycheck. This is the same government entity that issued some of the most draconian lockdown measures in the entire country during the pandemic at a considerable economic cost to those who could not sit behind a laptop on their couch. Why should the taxpayers be paying for bonuses for those that have not been economically impacted?
This is another example of government on multiple levels wasting taxpayer money. I can certainly think of much better uses for this money, and I have a feeling that deep inside the county employees would agree.
Gregg Fisher
Morgan Hill
Civil liberties don’t end
civil responsibilities
The anti-vaxers and anti-maskers are frustrating factions to me, although I realize that they have diverse motivations. According to Julia Hover-Smoot (“Don’t force the police, or anyone, to vaccinate,” Letters to the Editor, Page A6, Oct. 5), that choice is “an intrinsic part of our civil liberties.”
But as I see it, civil liberties do not come without civil responsibilities. Freedom is not a one-way street, granting anyone the right to infringe on the rights and welfare of others. Two reliable methods are available to end the COVID pandemic: vaccination and limiting the spread of infections. Those are facts, and we have an implicit responsibility to rely on established facts when exercising our freedom of choice. It seems obvious that vaccination is the best choice for nearly everyone, and that should definitely not be a political issue.
The vast majority have been making the correct choice; most of the others are – in my opinion – making untenable excuses. Please, vax up.
Jerry Meyer
San Jose
Vaccinating will allow
a return to old lives
Over 1,800 people in Santa Clara County have died as a result of COVID-19. On the back end of a global pandemic, people are becoming tired of FaceTime and are looking for real face time with people. If we all get vaccinated we can have our family gatherings once more and enjoy grandma’s famous pie recipe.
This holiday season we can be reunited safely with in-person gathering cozy around the fire or singing carols on the lawn. To realize this dream I urge everyone who is able to get vaccinated against COVID-19. It is a safe, easy, free and effective way to return to the lives we once lived.
Anthony Calio
San Jose
Our democracy long
under attack from left
John M. Crisp (Opinion, Page A6, Oct. 5) writes “By 2024, we need to decide who we are and where we are going.” In actuality, we’ve already decided, and it has nothing to do with Donald Trump. Our democracy is not going, it’s already gone. Short-term push-backs by the Reagan and Trump administrations have been insufficient to halt the inexorable Vietnam Great Society flow to socialism. Election challenge is meaningless, a forlorn hope of change that will never happen. The pendulum has already swung so far that it can never swing back.
Better metaphors are the value of the dollar and the size of the national debt, which can never be retired. Spending on defense, pets, cosmetics and stress-related illness hardly justifies the social spending price tag. A permanent national debt assures socialism over capitalism and two-party dictatorship over democracy. Crisp’s “Bidenville” is actually “Sandersville.” It won’t change soon.
Fred Gutmann
Cupertino
Biden economic plan
must include carbon fee
In his Oct. 7 column published in The Mercury News, Thomas Friedman endorses carbon pricing by saying “Achieving the scale of clean energy that we need requires not only wind, solar, and hydro, but also a carbon tax.” (“A scary energy winter is coming, but don’t blame green energy,” Page A6) Friedman is emphasizing what climate scientists and energy economists already realize: that the urgency of climate change demands bold action by countries to reduce carbon emissions and curb the pace of climate change. And putting a price on carbon is the most effective way to reduce carbon emissions enough to achieve net-zero by 2050.
The climate change provisions in the reconciliation package pending in Congress are good steps in the right direction. But by themselves they are not broad enough and bold enough to accomplish what’s needed. Please contact our senators and your congressional representative and urge them to include carbon pricing in the reconciliation bill.
Rob Hogue
Menlo Park
Source: www.mercurynews.com