What did Strickland do?

Re: Tony Lamb's June 11 letter, "Strickland deserves apology":

Lamb wonders whether The Star would report Tony Strickland "being endorsed by the California Medical Association or his GreenWave alternative-energy company receiving the 2008 small-business award from the United Chamber of Commerce for its innovative technology?"

The Star shouldn't report an endorsement that doesn't exist. The California Medical Association doesn't endorse candidates, according to its media spokesman, Ned Wigglesworth. CMA's political action committee did donate to Strickland's campaign, however.

The Star should have covered the award given to GreenWave Energy Solutions, if only to show the chamber chose to give a small-business award to a company that hasn't accomplished anything noteworthy. The award seems to be based more on political considerations than merit.

GreenWave is a project development company, not a technology company, which has filed two preliminary permits with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for permission to test the feasibility of developing wave or hydrokinetic projects off the San Luis Obispo and Mendocino coasts. FERC determined the applications were deficient; it wanted more information on what technology would be used and how funds would be raised. GreenWave has since sent FERC responses to its questions, and all these documents are available on FERC's Web site.

What Strickland's actual contributions to GreenWave's efforts are is not entirely clear. In April, Star reporter Timm Herdt reported Strickland was made a vice president and given a 20 percent share of the company based on his promise to contribute $5,000 and his pledge to help the project with strategic planning. Since he received no income from GreenWave, but did have an income from his New Market Strategies consulting business, it was perfectly reasonable for one to question Strickland labeling himself as an "alternative energy executive" rather than as "businessman" or "consultant."

— Kenneth Long, Newbury Park

Deficits matter

Re: Jay Ambrose's June 12 commentary, "GOP's primary failing: Not conservative enough":

Yes, indeed, Republicans are not conservative enough. Take money, for instance. Did you know that President Reagan and the two Bushes are responsible for a whopping 70 percent of the entire national debt ever run up in this entire nation's history?

"National debt" is red ink. It's money borrowed by the federal government to keep the country going. They're IOUs with Uncle Sam's signature on them — actually, make that the signatures of you, your kids and your grandkids. The tooth fairy isn't going to pay all that money back. All what money? Around $10 trillion. That's two-thirds of gross domestic product. Would you lend money to someone whose credit card balance was two-thirds of their income? Didn't think so.

Vice President Dick Cheney said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Really? There's a connection between national debt, the dollar and you. The more debt, the weaker the dollar; the weaker the dollar, the costlier the oil; the costlier the oil, the weaker the dollar, etc. Deficits do matter — if the tooth fairy isn't paying for your gasoline.

Republicans are the Pied Pipers who take us over the cliff and brag about not increasing taxes while they do this. That's no fairy tale.

— James McIntyre, Newbury Park

Democrats not to blame

Re: Bill O'Reilly's June 14 commentary, "Oil and trouble if U.S. doesn't break from oil cartels":

America's tragedy is that O'Reilly's pernicious drivel is mistaken for wisdom. Does O'Reilly state that President Bush's energy policy consists of flying to Saudi Arabia, begging them to pump more oil and being told to buzz off? Of course not.

He blames both political parties for the present price of oil. That's strange. I thought Bush was a Republican. Under his administration, the price of oil has quadrupled. He has caused the value of the dollar to plunge and, thus, the price of oil to surge.

Speaking of a surge, the invasion of Iraq reduced oil supplies. He is trying to wrangle another war with Iran, and analysts believe this has caused oil futures to soar on commodities markets.

You caused $4 a gallon gas if you voted Republican. Stop voting for them!

— Alexander Freeman, Thousand Oaks

Job first, salary second

Elected leaders need to brush up on their economics.

There is a wage pool in the business world, just as there is a household income pool.

Most minimum-wage jobs are held by teenagers.

Our elected officials decide they are much smarter than the market and can set a unit wage that must be paid to employees by employers. This is not determined by skill set or experience or the employer.

Our elected leaders raise the minimum wage, and it sounds like the feel-good thing to do. But what they really did was make this the worst year in a very long time for teenagers seeking jobs. Companies only have so many dollars to go around. Higher set wages not determined by skills or experience mean fewer jobs.

It runs on basic math. Divide the wage pool by minimum wage, and this will tell you how many jobs will be afforded. Raise the wage while the wage pool remains the same, and it means fewer jobs for our youths.

Let's keep teens employed. Salary is secondary to the skills they will learn to help them through life.

— William F. Klepper, Simi Valley

Reward for conservation

Re: your June 15 editorial, "Water must be conserved":

Having experienced the drought of 1991 here in Simi Valley, I can list many flaws that were part of that water-conservation program.

In particular, the people who wasted water by washing their sidewalks, driveways and cars and ignored the call for conservation were given a higher allotment of water than those of us who conserved water until the mandatory rationing was implemented.

The reason for this unfairness was that the wasters' usage history was greater, and, therefore, their allotment was greater. Thus, we were penalized for conserving, and the wasters only had to cut back to the reasonable amount of consumption they should have been using in the first place.

I propose that this time, the water districts determine the average usage per household member within the district with a smaller amount per child. The total household target would then be the sum of the individual averages for the household, adults plus children usages. Then, implement a program that contains an average usage range, say plus or minus 5 percent of the target usage amount based on their household needs. Then, reward consumers who use an amount below the average range by, say, 10 percent — that is 15 percent below the target amount — with a percentage discount on their bill and a higher percentage penalty for those who exceed the household usage target range.

The penalties would offset the discounts. In fact, if implemented properly, the penalties could also offset the additional cost for the scarcer water commodity.

— George A. Kuhr, Simi Valley