Job evaluations of Bush, others

Re “Job performance evaluations: The president,” editorial, Dec. 31

Why would The Times, in its performance evaluation of President Bush, give him an “exceeds expectations” for financial management when he squandered a budget surplus from the previous administration, gave a lopsided tax cut to the wealthy, refused to pay for the war, sent the federal deficit to new heights and wants to take credit for the economy when the turnaround was the result of the business cycle?

I’ve seen and prepared my share of performance evaluations, and you have done what too many administrators do and whitewashed his performance in this area entirely.

RALPH MITCHELL

Monterey Park

*

I have a much simpler and, I believe, a much more accurate evaluation of Bush than that proposed in your editorial. It reads like this: “Employee’s actions and demeanor since the last performance assessment indicate he is a detriment to our corporate interests, if not an outright danger to the company itself. He has ignored and violated company policy on numerous occasions. His reckless and self-serving behavior during the performance of his duties consistently raises the specter of possibly unlimited legal liability on our part in the future. Recommendation: Immediate termination.”

STEVE GAGHAGEN

Big Bear Lake

*

The evaluations of Bush, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa had good points. The Times stressed that they were “employees.” I have always felt that when we vote, we delegate responsibility to plan, conduct and manage the business of government. They don’t work for themselves; they work for the citizens who elected them.

However, there’s also responsibility for the citizens. We have to hold them accountable to do the job they have been entrusted to do. That’s how the system works.

LARRY GALLUP

Huntington Beach