Craig Nichols (letter, March 13) tried to hold up California as some kind of U.S. version of Venezuela in an effort to fearmonger about taxes. The facts don’t support his view.

The article Nichols refers to in his letter says the main culprit behind the poverty level in California is housing costs — not taxes. The poverty level doesn’t mesh with the fact that California’s unemployment rate is close to the national average, and some metro areas are seeing less that 3 percent unemployment. California is also a donor state — it pays more into the federal government than in services it gets back.

It ranks 39th of the 50 states while Ohio ranks 27th in dependency on the federal government. If poverty was so bad, we would see a much higher ranking than 39th.

Meanwhile, Ohio has sat at, or near, the bottom of the job-creation stats for several years, and people with low incomes here pay far more state and local taxes than higher-wage earners. Trickle-down economics fail again.

Medicare for All is a way of controlling the spiraling cost of health care for everyone. It would be a single-payer, government-run program that would replace insurance premiums and high deductibles many people are paying now. Insulin — which hasn’t been changed in decades — saw prices spike 3,000 percent since 2001. Medicare for All would lower the costs like that by negotiating better coverage pricing for the people who need it.

Medicare for All would help business by reducing the need to provide health insurance for employees. Many corporations enjoy that benefit at their locations in Europe that already have universal health care.

So, yes, Craig Nichols, we would all be better off if more states acted like California.

Douglas Berger




I hand-delivered a letter to the office of the Hancock County commissioners in July 2017, stating a solution to the Blanchard River flooding.

I thought that the solution was fairly simple: Create a place for the excess river water to go by digging a hole!

A fellow from Vanlue made a similar suggestion and called it a third reservoir. My idea was for the hole to be on the west side of Findlay where the state, county, and city own land, therefore having no need to take land from individuals.

The city is widening the river, but why dig a hole then fill it in … with anything? That is a waste of money/time and defeats the purpose of the hole.

Dig a hole for the excess river water to fill by gravity. When the river level drops, let most of the water in the hole go back into the river, again, by gravity, through a check valve.

Digging a hole should not cost $60 million.

Andrew Donaldson