The killing of an Iranian nuclear scientist; Mitt Romney and private-equity firms; rethinking Proposition 13

It had to be done

Re “How far is too far on Iran?,” Editorial, Jan. 12

The editorial regarding the car-bomb killing of an Iranian nuclear scientist comes across as rather sanctimonious. All but assuming that Israel’s hand was at play, the editorial condemns the action as somehow unfitting.

The Iranian regime has said Israel should be destroyed. Such a move by Iran could only be accomplished through a nuclear attack on Israel, which probably motivates Iran’s unrelenting effort to develop such weapons.

While the West attempts to pressure Iran economically to stop this effort, there is little evidence that the strategy has been effective. Under this real-time existential threat, Israel cannot afford to wait and see what may result.

The undermining of Iran’s nuclear weapons program by whatever means possible, including targeted killings, may well spare the lives of countless people in both countries.

Ruel Mizrachi

Port Hueneme

Private-equity motivation

Re “Greed, or good?,” Business, Jan. 12

Debating whether private-equity firms increase or decrease jobs misses the point. Their raison d’etre is to maximize their own profit.

It is acceptable if jobs are increased while pursuing maximum profits. However, if maximum profitability means firing every employee, that also would be acceptable.

It is not that private-equity firms are good or bad; they are simply amoral. The question with respect to Mitt Romney is whether his willingness to serve as the head of such an amoral group is relevant to his candidacy.

Darrel L. Miller

Santa Monica

There were American businesses that were sick. Some could be saved and others could not. Some jobs were saved, some were shed, and some were created based on investments. And they, of course, made a handsome profit.

There’s a talent for identifying value and converting the parts or the whole into a new or better business. If that talent can be applied to the federal government, maybe we’ve got our man.

Selby Jessup

Studio City

Based on personal experience, I believe comments by Romney’s GOP rivals on “vulture capitalism” perpetuate a misunderstanding about venture capital.

They are not vulture capitalists. Vultures, like the ones picking at a road-kill squirrel on the road near our farm, eat the already dead. Venture capitalists and hedge funds do not like to deal with “dead” firms; they prefer preying on the healthy ones, luring them into their grasp, then sucking them dry of their lifeblood (money, of course).

Thus, I call them “vampire capitalists.”

Jim Hayes

Fallbrook

Adjusting Proposition 13

Re “Why is Prop. 13 sacrosanct?,” Opinion, Jan. 9

Proposition 13 addressed a real problem: Homeowners whose properties had increased in value faced tax bills that bore no relation to their incomes. However, Proposition 13 imposed a very poor solution, effectively capping the taxable value at little more than the purchase price.

The most equitable and least disruptive way to solve this problem would be to allow a homeowner to defer taxes based on market value until he or she sells the property.

All the other provisions of Proposition 13, including property taxes on corporations and the two-thirds voting requirement to raise taxes, had nothing to do with the problem.

John Hamilton Scott

Sherman Oaks

I’d like to explain to Jim Newton why periodically raising taxes on businesses is a bad thing.

Businesses are not uniformly selfish repositories of vast profits that need to be redistributed. Actually, the business of most businesses is staying afloat in a competitive environment. Failure is always just a few steps away.

Raising business taxes at the whim of property market values is simply one more impediment to profitability and survival.

Patrick M. Dempsey

Granada Hills

As a senior, I enjoy the protections of Proposition 13. Unfortunately, as Newton points out, the business community has evaded fair property taxes through Proposition 13, taxes that belong in the state’s treasury.

When I attended UCLA in 1950, my fee was $60 a semester. Since Proposition 13 passed in 1978, college fees have skyrocketed. Correcting the faults in Proposition 13 would help reduce the burden on our state college students.

Proposition 13 is not sacrosanct.

Samuel Rosen

Newbury Park

There’s more to play than play

Re “Let the preschoolers play,” Editorial, Jan. 9

Your editorial was almost right-on. It refers to “good old purposeless play.”

All play that children engage in is purposeful, even if it is not readily obvious to adults. Whenever children play with blocks, they are learning problem-solving skills, for example. Playing with sand? How about math and science concepts such as volume and the properties of materials.

Messy art activities are not designed to raise parents’ hackles about their children’s clothes getting dirty; they are intended to help small children learn about their world.

Susan Pasternak

North Hollywood

Until the No Child Left Behind Act is amended, there will probably be no increase in the amount of developmentally appropriate play for children. The frenetic drive to improve test scores makes teachers feel they have little choice but to focus on academics rather than allowing time for unstructured play.

It’s no wonder many children have difficulty problem solving and getting along with others — there was no time to learn this in school.

Phyllis O’Neal

Orange

Quite a view

Re “Keeping it a Grand Canyon,” Editorial, Jan. 11

I hope Americans will indeed thank the Obama administration for protecting land surrounding the Grand Canyon from new mining. This measure protects our environment and economy.

When was the last time you gazed across thousands of acres without roads, power lines or artificial lights? The experience raises awe and calms the soul, and it is becoming extremely rare. Travelers wishing to escape their daily frenzy cherish the Grand Canyon’s unfragmented landscape.

It makes no sense to industrialize lands prized by people worldwide to benefit a few corporations. During the economic downturn, the Grand Canyon experienced record visitation. During hard times, people seek comfort in nature. This is our stable economic base.

Mining booms come and go, but the Grand Canyon should be protected forever.

Alicyn Gitlin

Flagstaff, Ariz.

Not easy enough

Re “Fresh & Easy to close 7 stores in California,” Business, Jan. 13

Fresh & Easy entered the American market trying to operate in a niche carved out successfully by Trader Joe’s. But plastic-wrapped produce is what you get at Trader Joe’s.

Fresh & Easy made two mistakes, one minor and one dreadful. The minor mistake was designing the stores to look completely drab and institutional, unlike Trader Joe’s or Whole Foods.

The dreadful mistake, and the reason I refuse to shop at Fresh & Easy, is eliminating human checkers. It is no accident that closing seven stores affects only 200 jobs.

From day one, Fresh & Easy has been about job elimination, a policy I just won’t support.

Erica Hahn

Monrovia

Tea time

Re “Their sip has come in,” Column One, Jan. 12

I have been an avid tea consumer for about a year now, not only because of the health benefits one can get from drinking tea but also for the various distinct tastes and flavors. It’s interesting to read that there are “aficionados” who enjoy and are willing to go to great lengths — spending hundreds or even thousands of dollars — to experience these rare Chinese teas, as if they were buying an expensive bottle of wine.

Drinking tea isn’t just for the old anymore.

Renard Sagun

Long Beach