Did snobbery drive restaurant away?

I was sad to hear that the Harbor Court Bistro closed (”;TheBuzz,”; Star-Bulletin, Nov. 26). My understanding is that concerns from tenants caused the restaurant to be denied a liquor license. I find it peculiar that the space was used by two previous tenants that served liquor with no problem. I've patronized all three, and the only difference I've seen is that the current tenant seemed to attract a more “;local”; crowd. I know the owner of Harbor Court Bistro is local, maybe there is a connection there. We'll see if there is ever another tenant willing to risk the selective wrath of a few of the upscale condo owners.

I'm aware that the owner of Harbor Court Bistro also owns the O Lounge. I went to a charity event there once and learned that she often donates the use of her beautiful facility for these various functions. My colleagues all spoke highly of her. It's ironic that their last day of business was Thanksgiving. I hope she finds a more suitable space where she will be welcome and appreciated by locals like me.

Gov's non-attendance sends wrong message

How embarrassing for the state of Hawaii to have our governor singled out by a national cable news network for not attending the meeting with President-elect Barack Obama on Tuesday. Lingle said she had too many meetings scheduled to find the time to attend the meeting. She wanted to spend this time working on the state's budget needs.

Is she not aware that the meeting was intended to have Obama filled in on the needs of the states so that he could develop effective plans to aid those states that are in financial trouble? If Hawaii needs federal assistance, wouldn't her no-show at the meeting put the state at the back of the line? Her non-attendance could convey the message that Hawaii doesn't have any financial problems and she doesn't plan to be in line, much less at the back. I, for one, resent her attitude and will not forget her actions in the future.

If you tax the rich too much, they might leave

In 2007, the country's gross domestic product was $13.8 trillion. We spend about $2.4 trillion for our health care, about 17 percent of the GDP. Currently, the various taxing authorities around the country take about 40 percent of our GDP in taxes, or about $5.52 trillion in taxes each year. If the government takes on this “;single-payer system,”; then our average tax take from each taxpayer would start to go above 50 percent, like in Canada.

The U.S. Treasury cannot keep paying expenses of the government without the corresponding income from taxation. If we were to adopt a “;single-payer system,”; the government expenses would increase and we would have to increase taxes to pay for the system.

I have been a tax consultant for 27 years and I do not think it is fair for the government to sock it to the wealthy taxpayers. The fools are assuming falsely that the wealthy taxpayers will want to stay in the United States.

'Insensitivity' isn't part of bankruptcy law

If Mokulele Airlines' CEO Bill Boyer is correct in his Dec. 4 “;Gathering Place”; commentary and KGMB9 news anchor Keahi Tucker called the go!/Aloha rebranding proposal “;surreal”; on the air, the station has a big problem. That's an editorial, not news delivery.

More troubling is federal bankruptcy judge Lloyd King saying the proposed sale of Aloha's name to Mesa Airlines (go!'s parent) is insensitive to former Aloha employees.

Bankruptcy law (Chapter 7) only permits judicial discretion in determining debtor abuse. Perhaps King knows some law about “;insensitivity”; that the rest of us do not?

His odd statements play nice to the public in this case. But if I were his judge, I'd say “;Lloyd, do show me your citations.”;

Which legislators are unqualified, Rep. Say?

Rep. Calvin Say's Dec. 3 letter, “;Raise is needed to attract good legislators,”; argues that we need to raise legislators' pay because, “;The 2008 election clearly demonstrated that we have a challenge recruiting qualified candidates to run for office.”;

While an alternate theory for why legislators are giving themselves huge pay raises exists, namely that it's in their selfish interest to overpay themselves at taxpayer expense, let's put Say's theory to the test. If he believes this pay raise will result in better legislators, perhaps he could name which current members of his House delegation he considers to be unqualified to hold office — presumably a very large percentage of those legislators, given the magnitude of the pay raise designed to correct this imbalance — and then we can see what percentage of those unqualified members are booted out of office once the higher pay kicks in.

If most of the unqualified legislators remain in office, will Say pledge to rescind the pay raise as being ineffective at accomplishing its stated purpose? Surely he won't object to conducting such a basic measure of accountability for a government expenditure — since only an unqualified legislator would refuse to monitor the effectiveness of government spending.