Letters: Small businesses | Children’s welfare | Court’s hypocrisy | Social Security | Women’s rights

Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.

Aid small businesses
with housing support

Re: “Small businesses are struggling with inflation” (Page A1, May 13).

It’s sad that small business owners in San Jose are struggling post-pandemic. In the meantime, big money is squandered on apparently ineffective efforts to house the homeless.

Wouldn’t it make sense to support small business owners by providing them with affordable housing, mortgage breaks or rent subsidies? And to do the same for teachers, public safety officers and essential workers of all kinds?

A city populated by homeowners would impose social norms on the homeless, who would no longer hold sway over our streets. And a strong committed residential community could ultimately support worthwhile efforts to assist people in need.

Providing housing for people who work here but can’t afford to live here would energize small businesses, generate local taxes, revitalize the downtown and create jobs. It’s time to get creative with our thinking and our money.

Judith Hurley
San Jose

County finally puts
child’s welfare first

Re: “Parents are charged with having drugs all over home” (Page B1, May 10).

With hopes of a future career as a social worker in child welfare, I am pleased to read the actions authorities have taken in the case of Octavian Moreno and Krystal Delgado. As of 2022, it has been reported that more than two-thirds of drug overdoses have involved fentanyl.

Unfortunately, the death of two innocent children was what gained the attention of the Department of Family and Children Services. It is a shame that such tragic incidents in Santa Clara County had to take place before extreme measures were put in place. Fortunately, for Moreno and Delgado’s 1-year-old son, he gets another chance at life by being removed from harm’s way before it is too late.

I agree with the decision of Judge Hector Ramon to revoke both parents from having any kind of contact with their child. This is the first step in the right direction.

Christina Olivo
San Jose

Court’s hypocrisy
threatens our freedoms

Re: “Alito warns of threats to freedom of speech, religion” (Page A11, May 12).

Justice Samuel Alito’s hypocrisy is stunning and tragic. He bemoans a decline in tolerance for religious views after voting to kill Roe v. Wade, a 50-year-old precedent that prevented the religious right from imposing their minority religious views on the majority and endangering women’s health and lives.

People who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds may not be bigots, but they are absolutely imposing their beliefs on others. I don’t know of any LGBTQ advocates who want to force anyone into a same-sex marriage.

The primary threats to freedom of speech or religion, including no religion, are hypocrites like Alito, Clarence Thomas and the far-right justices who swore in their confirmation hearings that Roe is “established law,” and the corrupt Republicans in the U.S. Senate who confirmed them.

Wes Christensen
Palo Alto

Tax higher income to
boost Social Security

Re: “Economy extends Medicare viability” (Page C7, May 7).

Social Security is financed through a dedicated payroll tax. Employers and employees each pay 6.2% of wages up to the taxable maximum of $168,600 (in 2024), while the self-employed pay 12.4%.

To boost Social Security funds, a simple change without change to the benefit structure would require the payroll tax deduction to also be applied for all wages above $1 million. This would have no effect on payroll systems that do not pay big bucks.

The PG&E CEO who earns $17 million would add over $1 million a year to Social Security. Just think how much would be added if one considers all the CEOs earning more than $50 million a year and all the others with $1 million-plus in wages.

Jane Power
San Jose

Vote Democrat to
protect women’s rights

The reversal of Roe v. Wade is one of the many reasons I’m voting blue. And I’ll be voting blue until the Republicans eject the religious extremists.

In the 1970s, most Republicans were pro-choice. By 1980, the party had been taken over by the religious right, led by Jerry Falwell, a television evangelist. He delivered voters to conservatives by politicizing abortion (among other things). By the mid-80s, the pro-choice Republicans were a small minority. Eventually, by installing Supreme Court justices who are willing to go against the will of the people, they succeeded in reversing Roe v. Wade — a major hit to women’s rights. Republicans are planning to continue to revoke women’s freedoms — making contraception illegal is next.

Abortions decline when contraception is free and easily available — fewer unwanted pregnancies, fewer abortions. It’s simple. Democrats support contraception and are pro-choice. I’m voting for them.

Martha Laubaugh
Sacramento