LETTERS: Hummers, supermarket wine sales and more

Good riddance to the Hummer

I will shed no tears for General Motors' Hummer . I refer not to the military vehicles but to the monstrosities that populate our roads. The decision to even produce such a ridiculous SUV was indicative of the poor decision-making that led to GM's near downfall. Hummers are oversized, inefficient, over-polluting, gas-guzzling behemoths.

In an era of the rise of both gas prices and levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, what we need are more efficient vehicles that tread a bit more lightly on the earth. What exactly is the justification for driving a Hummer on a basically flat Long Island? We can make better decisions concerning the cars that we drive.

Jim Jones

Bayville

Guv's supermarket wine sales misguided

Gov. David A. Paterson's plan to allow supermarkets to sell wine seems misguided, and his explanations for wanting to do it seem confusing and ridiculous .

The governor's reasoning has been explained as the need to raise tax revenues. This explanation would only be valid if he believes wine sales will increase if wine is sold in supermarkets.

While I can't see that being true, if it is, has our state become so desperate financially that we need to entice our residents to drink more alcohol to raise revenues? Is this coming from the same state that wishes to tax soda because it is not good for you? Deter soda drinking and promote more alcohol drinking?

The more likely scenario if this proposal is enacted is that the liquor stores, which are usually privately owned by New York State taxpaying residents, will lose revenue to the big corporate supermarket chains.

In addition, once these big stores become buying forces, they will have the power to negotiate better pricing and in turn drive the price of wine down. This will actually reduce sales tax revenues, while possibly also closing down more small businesses in an already struggling economy.

Gary Schultz

Smithtown

Obama plan creates giant welfare system

Obama's plan to mandate that insurance companies must accept people with pre-existing medical conditions is very charitable , but the government interference in private enterprise could be compared to mandating that McDonald's offer free meals to the homeless. Insurance companies are not charities, and demanding that they accept potentially hundreds of thousands in liabilities is nothing more than a giant welfare program, with a cost that will be forced upon other participants. We should not be forced to bear this cost burden.

Robert A. Livingstone

South Hempstead