‘Cheney for President’

Re: “Cheney for President,” Lawrence Kudlow, Opinion, March 23, 2005. Mr. Kudlow’s wishful thinking about a Dick Cheney presidency reminds me of the grandmother who proclaims that her newborn granddaughter would win any beauty contest because, “She’s the most beautiful baby in the world!” Or the son who proudly proclaims: “No one makes lasagna like my mother does!”

Like Mr. Kudlow, I believe that Mr. Cheney’s qualifications to be president are virtually peerless. And I believe that he would make a good one. Then again, we’re fans of Mr. Cheney. But most of the nation is not, and he would never be elected.

Unless the Republicans can be truly objective about who would win, and find a candidate who really understands the Reagan/George W. Bush ideology (clearly, George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole did not) and has the charisma to pull it off, then Hillary Clinton is going to occupy the White House in 2008 by doing what her husband did best: “Out-Republicaning” the Republicans.

CONSTANTINOS E. SCAROS
Cliffside Park, N.J.

‘The Idiot Savant?’

Whatever the merits of your editorial questioning the wisdom of Warren Buffett’s macroeconomic prognostications, The New York Sun managed to get an easily checked fact completely wrong [“The Idiot Savant?” March 10, 2005]. You wrote that Berkshire Hathaway “lost nearly all” of the money it put into a $358 million convertible preferred of USAir when nothing could be further from the truth.

First of all, Berkshire received 9.25% per annum dividends over the eight years it owned the preferred shares, a healthy rate of return on its own. (USAir did fail to pay the dividends for several quarters in 1994 and 1995 but eventually caught up and paid Berkshire interest on the missed dividends in addition to the dividends themselves.)

Secondly, Berkshire eventually sold the preferred shares after converting them to common in March of 1998 at a healthy profit. Berkshire’s average realized sale price was never disclosed but the common stock traded at prices between $63 and $82 in the weeks after the conversion and subsequent sale of shares, which means that Berkshire almost doubled its investment just via capital appreciation relative to the conversion price of $39 over its eight and a half year holding period.

Given that Berkshire bought the convertible preferred in August of 1989, I estimate that Berkshire earned a compound annual pretax return on its USAir holding of at least 16%, including both the dividends and the capital appreciation, which represents a some what better return than your factually inaccurate suggestion that Berkshire lost nearly all of its money on the deal.

JONATHAN BRANDT
Manhattan

‘Schumer’s Miscalculator’

The dishonesty of Senator Schumer’s Social Security miscalculator becomes evident on performing your own simple spreadsheet calculation [“Schumer’s Miscalculator,” Editorial, March 9, 2005]. Assumptions: An 18-year-old entering the workforce today earning a $10,712 annual minimum wage until retirement at age 67; 10.6% of wages paid in payroll taxes for the retirement portion of Social Security ($1,135 a year) diverted to a private account and; a 6% constant-dollar rate of return (below the historical norm).

This yields a $359,406 retirement fund. Using the government’s Thrift Savings Plan calculator (TSP.gov) with its historically low 4.25% annuity interest rate, the fund can buy a lifetime annuity paying $2,073 a month, with COLA – more than twice what our hapless worker earned while working.

Social Security, however, only promises about $590 a month, 72% less than my private example. But Social Security cannot pay what it promises under current law. Our worker would actually receive a measly $413 a month, or about 20% of the private annuity. Social Security is detrimental to the very people it purports to help, i.e., those at the bottom of the economic ladder. The damage is worse, both in dollar and percentage terms, at higher income levels.

Senator Schumer is from the government and he’s here to help us. Chuck his advice.

EDWIN R. THOMPSON
Manhattan

‘What’s Wrong With This?’

Re: “What’s Wrong With This?” Hillel Halkin, Opinion, March 15, 2005. Mr. Halkin is right on target. Holocaust museums and massive Holocaust education have not abated European anti-Semitism. Another contributing factor worth considering is the lumping of tragedies as “Holocaust.” This conveniently lets Europeans off the hook since others are just as culpable for atrocities done to other groups. The shared experience of “Holocaust” only enrages them when they are confronted with its “museumization,” further flaming anti-Semitism. A young German theologian I know of remarked upon a recent visit to the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C., that it should be in Germany.

STANLEY SCHER
Bronx

---

Please address letters intended for publication to the Editor of The New York Sun. Letters may be sent by e-mail to editor@nysun.com, facsimile to 212-608-7348, or post to 105 Chambers Street, New York City 10007.Please include a return address and daytime telephone number. Letters may be edited.