Dear Editor:
It has been established by law that corporations are individuals having rights conveyed to all individuals. (See US Supreme Court Citizens United decision.) By extension, I assume these individuals also have individual responsibilities like the rest of us.
That being the case I view Noranda Aluminum as an individual and its 900 employees as its dependents. Noranda now cannot pay their utility bill and continues to support their dependents and ask that other utility customers help pay their bill. Of course they use different terms and specious reasoning as if their request is really saving everyone money.
The question for me becomes who and how are we going to determine monopoly rates? Is it going to be based on an individual's (in this case a corporate individual) ability to pay? And if this is so, should not all individuals needing financial help for their dependents have the right for a hearing to explain their specific circumstances? If a company is in need of welfare as in Noranda's case, why not go where auto manufacturers and banking concerns go for their support checks rather than to those of us who happen to share the same utility supplier?
Of course Noranda has another option available to it; they could ask our state Legislature for a handout as the Legislature appears to favor such welfare. However, Noranda would need to downplay the needy individual identity aspect.
The current favored phrase at the Capitol is "job creator."
Movie title
Grade: grade here
Cast: cast here
Director: director here
Rating: rating here
Running time: minutes
Showtimes and Ticket Info