St. Louis unsafe? Not in my experience

I am sick of studies that appear to show that St. Louis is dangerous. It's not. Another such 'study" was reported earlier this month.

A few years ago, I did a ride-along with the St. Louis Police. I was allowed to choose any jurisdiction, any day, any time. I chose north St. Louis from 7 p.m. to midnight on a Saturday. And it was boring. Yes, boring.

Initially, it was exciting to ride in a police car, to watch how the police look at what's going on in a totally different way than you and I do, to see the computer, to hear other cops talk on the two-way, to meet with other officers along the way for a quick chat. But action? No. Danger? Not that night.

There was a break-in in a building, but no one was there and nothing was taken. There was a stolen car in an alley. No one was there. There was a small marital dispute. Period. And that was Saturday night in north St. Louis, seven to midnight.

I had the same opportunity in Washington, D.C., a few years earlier. I chose the same night, same time, in Anacostia, an area of the nation's capital that many feel is the most dangerous. There were murders and drug busts and knives and guns and beatings. We raced from one dangerous situation to another all night long, the lights atop the police car blazing. I wasn't allowed out of the car at times because of danger. There wasn't one idle moment that night in D.C.

I am a 65-year-old white, privileged woman, and I am in north St. Louis often. I never have felt as if I weren't safe. I visit Holy Trinity School; I read with my mentee at Confluence Academy; I have coffee at the new coffee house near Crown Candy with Rod Jones, president of Grace Hill; I go to Dunbar Elementary and Vashon High School. I went door-to-door for then for then-presidential candidate Barack Obama. There is police presence everywhere and a lot of friendly people who are glad to see you.

People should not believe all those trumped-up reports that have no basis in fact. All kinds of people with no credibility can make statistics say anything they want and send a press release.

Karen Kalish • Clayton

Give what you can

Because America is deep in debt, most people are concerned about reducing the deficit, whether on the federal, state or local level. Naturally, it would be unwelcome for all levels of government to raise taxes. If we can't open new resources, we need to cut spending. I don't see any way out.

The events in Wisconsin show that people who already receive the benefits refuse to give in. Will we see protests in other states, too, knowing that some states plan to do the same as the Wisconsin government?

The standard of living in America is much higher than most places in the world. Therefore, everyone should be able to contribute to the difficulty the entire country is facing. Yet, it seems that the unions refuse to yield. Maybe they expect the government to keep borrowing or printing money until the government sinks.

The Economist recently had an essay on unions that said public unions are much more powerful than private-sector unions. The magazine urged government to pay attention to the public unions. The Wisconsin demonstration shows that reality. And the Democratic politicians are evading their responsibility by leaving the state. It bewilders me.

The Missouri Legislature is debating the right to work rule, and unions are against it. Is this a democratic principle? People should have the freedom to work for less.

Union membership can't guarantee quality work, and the cost is high. Everyone has the right to work and to decide for how much. This is a person's right and decision.

The CEO of Emerson Electric said he no longer would hire Americans. Many big businesses have moved their business elsewhere to avoid paying the high wages charged here. This is a reality.

Education levels are rising in other parts of the world. Those workers can do many of the jobs of the American workers are doing, which means we will see more and more outsourcing.

Let us all help our country by giving what we can give so that we can bring down the deficits of the cities, states and the federal government. Either that or we must let government raise our taxes to meet the revenue demand so that similar services can be provided.

David Cheung • St. Louis County

Program costs

After reading "Tough, guys" (Feb. 22), an editorial referencing different federal government programs and related costs, I wondered it those programs could be the reason that the federal government is broke?

Thank God for people like Rep. Todd Akin, R-Town and Country, and Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-St. Elizabeth.

Fred Dyer • St. Charles

Budget challenge

The arguments over budget cuts could be resolved by a simple challenge: The Democrats would agree to cut budget expenditures by $50 billion, and the Republicans would agree to cut $50 billion from various tax loopholes or subsidies for corporations. The Congressional Budget Office and IRS would verify the dollar amounts were accurate.

Tom Borgmeyer • St. Charles

Stop fighting

We need to stop our political fighting and start working together. Our country's debt is $14 trillion. It took many years to get here and will take many years to get us out. We must come up with a plan that will get us out of debt in 30 years.

If we can't devise a 30-year plan, then automatic budget-cutting should begin — cuts made across the board for every department based on that department's percentage of the budget. Each year the government can spend only what it brings in.

It will be and should be painful for every one. After all, everyone has benefited from the government spending, and everyone should have to pay for it.

If we struggle for the next 30 years by paying off our federal debt and reducing our spending, think about all the money people will be able to keep instead of having to pay taxes in 2041. Talk about prosperity.

My wife and I recently sat down and did this with our budget, and we were pleasantly surprised by what can be accomplished if we set a budget, stick to the budget, pay off our debt and, most important, live within our means.

Bob Leimberg • Crestwood

The spoils system

Regarding Paul Krugman's column "Power play" (Feb. 22): As a retired U.S. Civil Service employee, I am required and obligated to say emphatically that I am in complete agreement with Mr. Krugman's assessment of the Republican power play and union busting.

Republicans historically have been and are now only too eager and ready to bad mouth public servants and do us harm, both financially and emotionally, by damaging our morale with their insidious attacks.

And now the current crop of Tea Party Republican attacks on public servants in general, like those in Wisconsin, is a blatant power play for control, back to the 19th century 'spoils system."

That's my opinion and I stand by it.

Roger Davis • Union

Not the problem

David Farr, CEO of Emerson Electric, said at a conference in Chicago that he would not hire anybody in the United States. He said the federal government is "doing everything possible to destroy jobs.... medical reform, labor rules." A spokesman for U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said Mr. Farr's comments were not based in fact.

Emerson seems to be doing well. Mr. Farr's salary is $24.8 million. If he worked in Japan or elsewhere in Asia where he likes to hire people, he would earn only 37 times the average worker, not the more than 400 times he earns now.

My wife and I like to take bus tours to see the country, as do many thousands of other retirees. We stay at Holiday Inns, eat at family restaurants and visit points of interest. How will it affect these businesses when there are no pensions?

I can't help but wonder how many people in the Plumbers & Pipefitters Union in Missouri could be paid by Mr. Farr's salary, including pensions for 1,300 people and health insurance for 10,000 people. Those people would be buying cars, homes, groceries, etc., and would paying millions in taxes.

We are one of thousands of unions, some bigger, some smaller. They say we are the problem. Why? If we don't work, we don't get paid.

Jim O'Mara • St. Louis Retired business manager, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 562

Too late for incrementalism

Labor supporters in Wisconsin have awakened progressives across the United States like the spring thaw on hibernating bears. We're hungry for more than soaring rhetoric accompanied by further handouts to the superrich. We want action!

While few sentient Americans dispute the need to rein in the prison-military complex, it's time to change the national conversation from a spending crisis to one born from a lack of revenue.

Our regressive tax law structure encourages far too many tax-avoidance strategies by millionaires and corporations, ranging from offshore banking to domestic tax havens. Warren Buffet conceded recently that for years he's been paying a lower percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary. The Government Accountability Office revealed that some 83 of the top 100 largest U.S. corporations conceal vast fortunes in tax shelters.

And while there has been some White House mumbling of closing tax loopholes and ending subsidies for Big Oil, the focus has remained on budget cuts that affect the working poor and dwindling middle class — Head Start, community relief organizations, Social Security, etc.

It's too late for Obamaist incrementalism. We can cede no more ground to fake populists, angry xenophobes and the rest of the free-market masochists who have become the unwitting dupes of a malign corporate elite. No longer shall those who can afford the most pay the least.

Table scraps from the masters of avarice no longer will distract us as our jobs disappear, our environment is wrecked and our dreams fade.

Shannon Hays • St. Louis

Consent of the governed

The Middle East revolts prove that Tom Paine was right: Government derives authority by the consent of the governed.

Despite our revolutionary origin, when I grew up during the cold war, revolutions were suspect because of concerns about communism. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, revolutions were suspect because of hostile religious states.

Any government founded in the principle of citizen subservience to the needs of institutions is doomed to failure. Thus has been the case of many communist states, and thus will be the case for religious states.

Our founding fathers had the wisdom to physically separate the political center (Washington, D.C.) from the economic center (New York City) of the country. Today, those lines are blurred, often allowing business needs to undermine individual needs.

Business — like any institution we create — exists to serve the individual, not the other way around.

If this trend continues, we may find our own government less relevant in serving the needs of our people.

Steve Bowman • Chesterfield

Shores of Tripoli

The news of the extreme violence in Libya brought to mind that the first two lines of the "Marine's Hymn," written more than 150 years ago, might give us a chilling commentary on American foreign policy: "From the halls of Montezuma (where any American's life is in jeopardy today) ... to the shores of Tripoli ... (where any American's life is in jeopardy today)."

Something to think about, eh?

Julius Hunter • St. Louis