DEAR EDITOR:
I have noticed a trend over the last several months while reading the letters to the editor. The letters all have political overtones and talking points concerning the loans given to General Motors and Chrysler back in 2008-09.
I suspect that most of the authors are supporters of Mitt Romney because they are trying to prove a fallacy, that only UAW workers benefited from President Obama's major role in preventing the auto industry from a catastrophic failure.All anyone has to do is think rationally and not Romneyally to realize that more workers who are not unionized benefited from the loans and the saving of a critical and iconic American industry.
Take a moment and think about everywhere that our local UAW workers and the retired UAW members spend their hard-earned paychecks and pension monies on a daily, weekly or monthly basis. The list is staggering. I could fill this entire page with it. Parts makers, grocery stores, department stores, restaurants, doctors, dentists, landscapers, cable companies, auto dealers, newspapers, etc. Think about the thousands and thousands of workers employed in these businesses not only locally but nationwide. They are not UAW members, but if GM had gone out of business, every single one of them and their families would have been negatively impacted and the economy, especially in our area, would have been devastated.
Some of the letter writers made the Romney argument that a ''managed bankruptcy'' was better than loans but in a managed bankruptcy, anything can happen, including plant closings and wages being cut drastically.
To try to argue this lie in our area seems totally foolish, considering the large population of UAW members and retirees here, but there is no doubt in my mind that many people will believe it and vote against their own interests. Don't drink the tea. The facts are irrefutable and the results of the industry surviving are everywhere you look.
Tim O'Hara
Canfield