What a terrible idea to let major cities pick who’s president

Not an energy if, but a when

Contrary to Richard Greene’s statements in his Feb. 17 column, “How Democrats’ Green New Deal could help keep Tarrant County red,” (5B) our eventual elimination of the burning of oil, gas and coal is not only feasible — it is necessary to prevent future catastrophic climate events.

The Paris Agreement’s goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 can be met with existing nuclear energy and renewable hydroelectric, wind and solar sources along with battery storage and transitioning to electric vehicles.

Several states and more than 100 cities — including Atlanta, San Diego, Austin and San Antonio — have set clean power goals. California and Hawaii have legislated goals for 100 percent renewable energy by 2045. Austin’s goal is 100 percent renewables by 2035.

There is a sea change in energy production under way, and the oil, gas and electric power industries will have to adjust.

Cities don’t deserve this power

Once again, some folks have the inane idea to eliminate the Electoral College. The popular vote is good for local government. The popular vote is good for state government. The same goes for the U.S. House of Representatives (although I believe senators should be appointed by state legislatures, as originally done.)

But once you get to president over all the states, it becomes necessary for each state to have a relatively equal say in the election. The popular vote would mean that the major cities elect the president and the rest of the country sucks eggs.

Only Democrats, progressives, liberals, socialists and fools want to eliminate the Electoral College. It is how we stay free and equal. To do anything less is folly.

One is better by comparison

Some far-left Democrats lean toward socialism. Some far-right Republicans lean toward white nationalism.

I’m a left-leaning centrist, so neither option appeals to me. But President Donald Trump’s constant lying, his divisiveness, his multiple corrupt Cabinet members, his willingness to sacrifice the environment to make a buck, his massive tax cut to corporations and the wealthy instead of to middle- and low-income workers, his move away from NATO and our historical allies to Russia and other authoritarian regimes and his unwillingness to confront Russian President Vladimir Putin on the cyber-invasion he implemented during the United States’ 2016 election because he believes Putin’s denials over all of America’s intelligence agencies’ assessments — this all makes me say, “The socialists can’t be any worse.”

The way the systems work everywhere

A letter of Feb. 21 (9A) said Social Security and Medicare are not socialism because “American participants pay into these programs throughout their working lives and, after retirement, draw monthly sums from Social Security and use Medicare to pay for 80 percent of their physician medical expenses.” The key words are “after retirement.”

If a never-married, childless, not-disabled person dies before retirement, he or she receives nothing. That person’s contributions to the system (which are not optional) have been or will be used to pay the benefits of others. If that is not socialism then what is?

Every developed country has socialism in varying degrees. The question in our country has been, and will continue to be, not whether we have socialism but rather how much. We are all socialists.