Right idea, wrong target

Right idea, wrong target

EDITOR:

In your June 24 editorial, you note that the Chinese tire case filed by the United Steelworkers would be an important test for the Obama administration. I agree, but not for the reasons you outline in the rest of the editorial.

As the owner of a tire wholesaler who sells to more than 3,000 independent tire dealers in the Midwest, I’ve had a front row seat to the changes in the U.S. tire market over the past decade. In short, the Steelworkers have their case backward. The domestic tire manufacturers made the decision to exit the low-cost tire market and concentrate on higher profit, more expensive tires first. Finding fewer and fewer low cost, American made tires for sale, we (and other dealers) were forced to look overseas for tires.

At the same time, domestic manufacturers either retooled their plants to build higher cost tires or closed older, less efficient plants. Even if President Obama upholds an expected International Trade Commission remedy, there is little chance that any of these jobs will return. Instead, we will be forced to buy tires from manufacturers in Poland or Venezuela.

If President Obama wants to maintain his credibility on international trade issues, he should pick the right target. The Chinese tires dispute is not that case.

ROSS KOGEL Jr., president

Tire Wholesalers Inc.

Troy, Michigan

Government could force people to be responsible

EDITOR:

American health care is the greatest health care on earth. Let’s not mess it up. Greater government intervention will do exactly that. The government system in place for poor people is destroying the backbone of our country. Because the government is willing to pay benefits to our poor people and never expect to be paid back, people are going out of their way to be poor.

Sure, let’s help people out. Instead of tearing them down to nothing, why not give them incentives to better themselves in the process. By letting people hold on to their assets they can hold on to their dreams and start where they left off.

The basic responsibilities toward ourselves are food, adequate health care and a warm safe place to live. Since the first two are already involved with the government, I’ll deal with them.

First of all we have to determine who can’t handle responsibility or hasn’t learned to be responsible. I would say anyone not being able to maintain $10,000 in an FDIC insured account would be the target group. People in this group would have special accounts, one for health care and one for food. Ten percent of their pay would go into each of these accounts. If they have health insurance, they would pay 10 percent over and above the cost of their premium to the account. In case they lose their income. they would be able to draw on the account as needed.

The dollar amounts would be kept track of even if totals become negative. Anyone who loses their income and begins to draw on a account would become a part of this group until the balance is paid off. Since people with negative account totals would be at risk, tax incentives could be offered to hire them at minimum wage. Other people wishing to donate would be able to do so in various ways while maintaining anonymity and their gift would be tax deductible.

Once the negative balance is cleared and the person can maintain the $10,000 balance in an FDIC account, the food and health care accounts can be closed. For those who don’t understand how this will work, you first have to realize there is no such thing as poor people, only poor policy.

ROBERT G. MOSSMAN

Youngstown