The Senate’s repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’; Tim Rutten on the estate tax; liberals who are unhappy with President Obama

Sanity in the Senate

Re “Senate strikes down ‘don’t ask,’ ” Dec. 19

Finally! Now that “don’t ask, don’t tell” has been repealed in a Senate vote, can we move on to issues that have a greater impact on the country and all of its citizens? I am completely sympathetic with the injustice of this policy. But the airtime, energy and attention given to this issue by myriad progressive and right-wing groups and the media is absurd.

To prohibit homosexuals from being and expressing who they are, whether in the military or not, is so patently wrong, it should not have taken one moment of back-and-forth yammering to get it right.

This country must look more petty and stupid to the rest of the world every day.

Tobi Dragert

Los Angeles

Your article calls the historic vote “surprisingly bipartisan.”

Bipartisan? Only eight Republicans, along with every Democrat and independent, voted to pass this bill. Let’s call it what it is: a Democratic bill that finally passed after the GOP fought ferociously against it. The majority of Senate Republicans should be deeply ashamed of their opposition to this bill, as well as every other piece of legislation that would benefit ordinary Americans.

Republicans will continue to filibuster, delay or otherwise obstruct every item of legislation that comes up as long as Obama is president. Democrats and independents will have to fight like tigers just to hold on to what we have now.

Bipartisan, my left foot!

Linda Winters

Culver City

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) voiced great concern when his peers were voting to eliminate “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Rest easy, old man: As a World War II tail gunner, I had a number of friends who hit Omaha Beach, and not one of them ever asked the guy next to him whether he was gay.

Isn’t it amazing that we overcame the Axis powers without asking about sexual orientation?

Sheldon J. Baer

Woodland Hills

McCain’s statement that “today is a sad day” as his response to the historic events leading to equal rights for all of our citizens in military service stands as a sad benchmark for how low this once great patriot has fallen.

If McCain simply substituted “black” for “gay,” he would realize what an embarrassing position he has taken, and hopefully start to act like the statesman he once was.

Jim Parsons

Canyon Lake, Calif.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins’ comment that the military “has been hijacked and turned into a tool for imposing on the country a radical social agenda” is devoid of historical perspective.

In spite of opposition, during the Civil War the Union experimented and fielded black soldiers — some were even freed slaves — to fight.

President Truman ordered the integration of the military, and thus avoided the senatorial flimflam and hypocrisy we witnessed among such Republicans as McCain. As far as I can determine, Truman’s radical social agenda has worked out well for the military and society.

Arch Miller

Arcadia

Taking on the estate tax

Re “And the rich get richer,” Opinion, Dec. 18

Tim Rutten’s arguments for keeping the estate tax on the wealthy assume that wealth somehow impoverishes another person or the country as a whole.

As wealth is acquired, it must be either put in a bank (which in turn invests in the community) or put to work (an investment in industry that creates growth for our nation). The only way wealth impoverishes anyone is when it is taxed.

The estate tax is a shameful form of double taxation. Repealing the estate tax for everyone is the fair and humane stance.

Michael Napoliello

Manhattan Beach

I hope the “conservatives” who have been voting against their self-interest look up the word “oligarchy,” because that’s where we’re heading.

“Gutting” the estate tax is one more step toward dominance by the rich and one more step away from the fading American dream.

Nate Tucker

Costa Mesa

Rutten claims the GOP extorted the Obama administration with the agreement on the estate tax. With a Democratic president and large majorities in both houses, why is there no criticism of the Democrats?

As for the estate tax, why should earnings that have already been taxed be taxed heavily again? This is simply seizing private property.

Terry Johnston

Newport Beach

Grizzly outcome

Re “Some big supporters of Obama aren’t pleased,” Dec. 17

So liberal Democrats and independents are disappointed in the president because of his compromise with the Republicans.

If they are not careful, their shortsighted thinking could cost them dearly in two years. Such an outcome could be far more devastating than they might suspect.

Nearly 100 years ago, Theodore Roosevelt and his Bull Moose Party made huge waves in the 1912 elections. It is quite possible that the Republicans — and the nation — will have their hands full with a “mama grizzly” faction in 2012.

In American politics, stranger things have happened.

Rodney K. Boswell

Thousand Oaks

Defending UC

Re “The road to mediocrity,” Editorial, Dec. 17

The Times rightly argues that placing the University of California under direct control of the Legislature could undercut the quality of a great asset. Regrettably, the editorial misses the mark on a couple of points.

Characterizing the UC system as a beneficiary of legislative “largesse” in the current budget overlooks the fact that we received back only half of what was slashed the previous year. The editorial complains that the university, despite this so-called largesse, raised student fees; in fact, the $822 increase in question applies to 2011-12, not the current budget year.

The larger point remains: California’s world-class system of research campuses has long been a catalyst for economic and societal growth. Now is exactly the wrong time to abandon a governmental model that has been a key to its success.

Patrick Lenz

Oakland

The writer is the University of California’s vice president for budget.

Not kid stuff

Re “One toke over the line,” Editorial, Dec. 16

Our increasingly lax attitude toward the use of marijuana may be acceptable for adults. This drug, however, is still an “evil weed” for young people. It should never be OK for them to use this drug.

The adolescent years involve remarkable brain and body changes. Introducing any substance, licit or illicit, into this evolving system is dangerous and should, at best, be done only for sound medical reasons. Educational approaches regarding marijuana and other drugs should continue to be developed and used with young people.

Every time there is a discussion of a more lenient attitude toward marijuana or any other drug, there should be an accompanying disclaimer that a zero-tolerance policy will remain for young people.

James Gardner

Woodland Hills

Port storms

Re “Port cargo traffic rises sharply,” Business, Dec. 16

I see little reason to be happy about the increased traffic at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach when it is higher incoming than outgoing by a large amount.

When are we going to get serious about exporting on more even terms? The time has come for this to happen with all of our trade partners.

Raymond Jaramillo

Los Angeles