Money's source matters
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Wednesday, March 20, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
After reading Robert J. Bush's letter “One-sided diatribe” (March 12 and TribLIVE.com) comparing government assistance for laid-off Hostess workers to the recently announced Heinz executives' payoff after that company's sale, I offer the following points for consideration:
• The key difference, for which Mr. Bush offers no distinction, is that the Hostess workers are being paid with taxpayer money, not Hostess money. The Heinz executives will be paid with shareholder funds — from shareholders who are free to sell their shares in the company if they are displeased.
• While I agree that the $436 million to be paid to the Heinz execs sure sounds like a nice pile of money, when you start to head down the “that's unfair and obscene” road, it leads to a very ugly place. Who gets to decide what's fair? The government? Anybody who thinks they “deserve” more? See, the problem is, no matter what level you have achieved in society, there is always someone who believes that what you have is “unfair.”
If you think the Heinz execs' payout is unfair, I can assure you that there are millions of people in the U.S. and around the world who think that what you have is “unfair,” and as we are seeing with $16 trillion in federal debt, sometimes there just ain't enough fairness to go around.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Obstacles to hiring
- Obama & Reaganomics II
- Obama & Reaganomics I
- Putin’s actions I
- Putin’s actions II
- Prison plan & the public’s say
- Our nation’s testing obsession
- Math in common?
- Funding priorities questioned