Energy Crisis: Price Caps or Dunce Caps

President Bush showed his true colors when he refused to repeal the gas tax while seeking an income tax plan that is truly skewed toward the rich (May 8).

The gas tax is a truly regressive tax because it generally hits lower-income people harder than higher-income people. Bush does not seem concerned about the effect of that tax on working families. On the other hand, he is very concerned about the estate tax, which mostly hits upper-income individuals and families.

If Bush were truly a uniter and not a divider, he would embrace a tax policy that would have more benefits for working-and middle-class individuals and families.

Larry Wiener

Alhambra

*

Your May 9 photo of customers waiting at a blacked-out store next to the headline insinuating that President Bush will not help out in the California energy crisis is ludicrous. The real headline should point out the ineptitude of our do-nothing Gov. Gray Davis. To link Bush to a problem brought on by and perpetuated by Californians and the state Legislature is insane.

Jeanette Ziolkowski

Glendora

*

Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Bush plays T-ball while the U.S. goes down in flames. By doing nothing to stop the out-of-control spiral of power costs, Bush and Dick Cheney are fattening the already obscene profits of their energy-industry pals while the rest of us reap the whirlwind of inflation and unemployment, not to mention the little matter of compromising the nation’s security with rolling blackouts. But, like campaign finance reform or the environment or his language skills, to Bush it’s all just “ No problemo .”

Jim Ryan

Van Nuys

*

Current price of filling Bush’s 10-gallon hat: regular: $20.30; unleaded-plus: $21.90; premium: $22.30.

Mike Lambert

Woodland Hills

*

Robert Scheer (Commentary, May 8) and The Times (editorial, May 8) need to obtain a basic understanding of economics and market forces before pontificating on energy policy and conservation. For conservation and many alternative energy sources to be economically viable, the price of energy must increase. For example, I could put a solar panel on my roof to create electricity, but I cannot recover my investment at today’s artificially low electricity rates. People will stop driving gas-guzzling SUVs to their Sierra Club meetings and carpool to work as gas prices increase. Nuclear power plants will be built once natural gas prices increase. Yet The Times and the liberal pundits rail against corporations as market forces increase price. The simple fact is that people will not volunteer to conserve energy until higher prices make it necessary. Likewise, corporations and homeowners will not invest in new, more expensive energy technology if energy prices are capped by the government.

Jeff McCombs

La Palma

*

In “Town Has a Dubious Distinction: Priciest Gas,” your May 7 story on expensive gasoline along the northern coast of California, you quoted a pickup truck driver as saying, “There’s nothing you can do about it.” Yet your accompanying photograph tells a completely different story. While it shows a service station price board with gasoline at $2.11 per gallon, the foreground shows two pedestrians and one bicyclist. Clearly, alternatives exist. And is it a coincidence the people walking and biking appear trim and healthy?

Peter Jacobsen

Sacramento

*

I seldom agree with Michael Ramirez on anything, but his cartoon depiction of the oil companies in California is right on the money (Commentary, May 6). I just got off the phone with a friend who recently returned to Seattle from California. He is paying $1.35 for regular there, as opposed to over $2 a gallon that he paid along the Golden State Freeway in California.

William Watkins

Covina