Letters to the Editor

President Obama wants to rescind the Bush tax cuts, arguing that the wealthy ought to contribute more ("Obama: End tax cuts for wealthy," Tuesday). Republicans counter that increasing taxes on the rich will drain resources that would have been used to create jobs.

These economic arguments overlook the fundamental moral issue at stake. Government is force: We are legally obligated to pay taxes. I suspect that very few Americans would be prepared to knock on a rich man's door, put a gun to his head, and demand that he provide for their needs. Such an action would be regarded as immoral. Yet many Americans endorse this same action when the government holds the gun. I suppose it's easier to evade the moral issue when someone else (the government) is doing the dirty work.

The solution is for government to do less. There would be no need to "soak the rich" or "burden the middle class" if Americans would divest themselves of the notion that government is supposed to solve every problem. The role of government, as the founders clearly understood, is to protect individual rights — period.

Although President Obama touts "shared sacrifice" as the only fair way to cure our economic woes, the "class warfare-soak the rich" theme is the only message we hear from his negative campaign. Instead of how, during the next four years, he will fix the things he hasn't fixed during his first term, all we hear is that Mitt Romney and all "rich" people are so evil you'd have to be nuts to vote for them. We Americans certainly wouldn't want a rich person like those Republican extremists Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, or John Kerry to occupy the Oval Office. Better to reelect Barack Obama, that champion of the poor.

The difference between a financial penalty that might potentially cost a transgressor a fee of, say, $2,000 and a tax that costs $2,000, if you are subject to paying it, escapes me ("House approves health-law appeal," Thursday). It is a semantic difference without a real distinction. The effect on one's wallet is the same. Of course, the political foes of President Obama will try to tarnish him for raising taxes, even if the "tax" will apply to the extremely few households that can afford health insurance but choose not to buy it.

To Mitt Romney and Republican pundits I say, get real, this is a nonissue. Much more important, regarding the mantra "repeal and replace," I ask, replace with what?

I run a small engineering firm with about 20 employees. Before this year, the firm paid the full health-care premium for employees and their families. However with a 33 percent increase in our premium rates starting July 1, we have been forced to ask our employees to contribute. They now pay up 10 percent of their own and children's premiums, and 25 percent of a spouse's. On Jan. 1, those percentages will double, bringing the firm's premium costs roughly to last year's levels.

Our monthly premium costs since 2006 have more than doubled and the health-care law appears to be further accelerating the trend. In 2012, health-care costs will reach 175 percent of our monthly rent and are second only to the payroll itself. The impact of the Affordable Care Act on small businesses seems to be a mixed bag, with some people arguing rates will decrease and others the opposite. For this small business, the case is closed. Simply naming it the "Affordable Care Act" doesn't mean it will achieve affordable care.