Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
State bond measureskeep racking up debt
Reading the election results I see that voters have once again authorized California to take on more debt, with very vaguely stated objectives regarding how the money will be allocated.
Proposition 2 is $10 billion for “education.” Proposition 4, a $10 billion jackpot of money for the never-achieved goals of “clean water” and “wildfire prevention.”
After these measures are enacted the Legislature will request a summary of where the money has been spent. Regularly, the governor will feign ignorance, or if an audit has been done, he will refuse to make public the findings.
Previous ballot measures have passed as panaceas for everything that ailed our poorly managed state. I have asked my elected representatives if they might know where the monies have gone, and if the funding has produced any tangible results.
I am still waiting.
Clifford SanburnSan Ramon
Coastal agency showedspite, not spine
Re: “Musk vs. Coastal Commission shows agency’s effectiveness” (Page A6, Nov. 8).
I strongly disagree with Joe Matthews. What do 12 Democrat commission members have to fear when they reach a decision that they know will be lauded by the Democrat governor and Democrat leaders of the legislature who appointed them? How is that courageous?
The commission properly performed its duties in cases against David Geffen, the Edge and Vinod Khosla. By Matthews’ own definition, they are “safeguarding coastal ecosystems and enforcing the public’s right to access the coast.” The launch site at Vandenberg does not meet these criteria. It just happens to fall within the commission’s boundary. Matthews devotes one parenthetical sentence claiming rocket launches hurt coastal wildlife. Show me the data.
It’s true most of Musk’s launches are not for the government. He does personal things like launching satellites over Ukraine and North Carolina to provide a much-needed ability to communicate.
The commission didn’t show spine. They showed spite.
Eugene PaschalDanville
Non-voters put Trumpback in White House
Donald Trump got 74 million votes in 2020. He got 75 million votes in 2024. Joe Biden got 81 million votes in 2020. Kamala Harris got 71 million votes in 2024.
Trump didn’t win this year because he netted any new voters. He won because 11 million Democrats and other non-Trump voters didn’t vote. Why they failed to vote remains a mystery to me. Perhaps it was progressives disgusted about Gaza, though Trump will be worse regarding that than Biden or Harris. Perhaps it was progressives disgusted about Harris’ tack to the middle, but progressives cannot win a national election on their own.
Whatever the reason, I hope that four years from now, they are happy. But I doubt they will be. I foresee then a defeated Ukraine, a disbanded NATO, a ballooning national debt, a U.S. credit downgrade, and a crashing economy and stock market.
Jay ChafetzWalnut Creek
Election results indictAmerican character
With the election of Donald Trump, Democratic politicians, pundits and talking heads seem obsessed with self-condemnation. However, that obsession is misplaced. The results were not an indictment of Democratic policies, but an indictment of Americans’ character — Americans who ignored rationality and chose their pocketbooks over morality and ethics.
They chose to ignore Trump’s known history of racism, fraudulent business practices, sexual predation, malicious rhetoric, yen for dictators, election interference, tax evasion and felonious indictments, thinking he would increase their economic well-being, despite many economists predicting Trump’s economic policies would be disastrous for the country.
I have only one thing to say to those who voted for Trump: “Bless us Father, for we have sinned.”
Robert ThomasCastro Valley
Sexism, bigotry playedrole in election results
I don’t want to think that Donald Trump won simply because men can’t stomach the gains that women have made. Men benefit from them too, but, then again, the election reflects the misogyny of society. And yes, women voted for Trump as well, but no one would have voted for a woman adjudicated of sexual assault, or convicted of 34 felonies, or a woman who had children by three or four different men … would they?
The whole thing creeps me out.
He has declared bankruptcy numerous times. He is openly racist, misogynistic, a compulsive liar and 51% of the voting public think that’s A-OK as long as he delivers on cheaper gas and grocery prices. He didn’t deliver on many of his promises in the 2016 campaign. This time won’t be any different, and a lot of people will be hurt.
Martha Van OrshovenLafayette
Power to producersover profit takers
Re: “It’s time to curb excess, power of private equity” (Page A12, Nov. 10).
Related Articles
Letters: Let voters pick | Residents, not council | Ground zero | Pointing finger | Climate legacy | Bad messengers
Letters: Conditional unity | Empty words | Leave grief | Dreadful future | Media narrative
Letters: Find alternatives | Agency example | Trump policies | Blame for win | Affordable homes
Letters: Local resistance | Gender identity | Schools’ focus | Not ready | Private equity | Testament to waster
Letters: State’s defense | Progressive policies | Comprehensive plan | Popular vote | Economic DEI | Harris choice
The recent letter on private equity highlighted a root cause of our social unrest. The wealthiest Americans literally have more money than they know what to do with.
Private equity now dominates sectors essential to daily life, from housing to health care. For example, private equity firms purchased nearly 22% of single-family homes in 2021, contributing to housing shortages and rising rents that hit average families hard. Similarly, private equity-owned health care investments have soared in the past decade, often raising costs and reducing quality as investors prioritize profit. The ultra-wealthy, struggling to invest their vast resources in traditional markets, turn to private equity to sustain their wealth, and those effects cascade across our communities.
We must rethink how much is too much and push for policy choices that protect those who actually contribute to the economy by working and producing, not just taking profits.
Michael MooreWalnut Creek