President should be allowed to fire CEO

I would like to reply to the May 30 letter posted by Roger Dauchy. He asks if it is constitutional for a president to fire the CEO of a corporation. I believe if a company wishes to obtain a tax-dollar-sponsored bailout of billions, the government should be able to determine what changes need to be made for the company.

If the company chooses not to make the changes, then there should be no bailout. If the CEO was unable to keep the company out of the red, perhaps the stockholders should rethink the value of the CEO. I understand the American ideal of hiring the best and paying accordingly, but if the company wants a bailout, I think the taxpayer should have a say in how the company is managed. The company executives should stay on for a minimal salary (minimum wage), as a motivation to repay the loan.

If Mr. Dauchy wants to continue to buy large vehicles, fine. Why can't the large vehicle get better gas mileage? One of the reasons the price of gas is so high is due to the demand for gas to fill up our SUVs that are used to drive single people to and from work.

If we spent extra money on improving gas mileage for large vehicles, the cost of the vehicle would rise. But the total price paid for gasoline would go down. Wouldn't we be better off paying extra money to American automakers to build more fuel-efficient vehicles, rather than paying extra money to oil-producing foreign nations?

The last reasonable paragraph is regarding the proposed cap-and-trade bill. He indicated the cost increase for each homeowner will increase to $3,400 per year for energy. This amount has been disproved on www.factcheck.org, May 28, "Cap-and-Trade Cost Inflation." Check it out.

Nikolas Eckert

Roselle