More Bailout Funds for S

In response to “Another Cruel S&L; Irony,” editorial, Nov. 3, and “Up to $100 Billion Extra Sought for S&L; Rescues,” Part A, Nov. 1:

The authors of the savings and loan bailout aren’t the only ones irked about soaring costs. As a taxpayer, I’m enraged. Could someone please explain why we are supporting a post-World War II relic that no longer serves a useful purpose? Aside from the savings and loans inept management practices, greed and basic structural flaws--to say nothing of the incredible debt to be shouldered by taxpayers well into the next century--the purpose of savings and loan institutions has gone the way of the dodo.

Following World War II, as associations investing their funds primarily in loans secured by first mortgages on homes, the savings and loans were a welcome opportunity. Today, however, banks provide these same services and, in general, probably do a better job. I disagree with The Times’ editorial that “stricter regulation is evident.” Dismantling the savings and loan system is required. Another requirement: examining the records of congressional members who helped to write the savings and loan rescue legislation.

JANET E. GRAEBNER

Santa Ana